State v. Tate , 58 N.C. App. 494 ( 1982 )

Judge VAUGHN

dissenting.

I find no error in the charge of the court in the case of Ralph Edwin Tate so prejudicial as to require a new trial. The judge merely recapitulated the evidence of the State and Beverly Tate. Ralph Edwin Tate offered no evidence. The only reference to the “contentions” of the State is found in the following sentence immediately preceding the recapitulation of the State’s evidence.

“Now in this case the State of North Carolina has offered evidence which in substance tends to show, and the State of North Carolina argues and contends it tends to show, that.

In my opinion, the judge fully and correctly instructed the jury on the essential features of the case. If there was some part of the State’s evidence defendant considered so favorable to him that he desired further elaboration, it was his duty to call that to the attention of the trial judge.