Opinion

Kennedy v. Tarlton

  • 12 N.C. App. 397
  • 183 S.E.2d 276
  • 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1370
Court
Court of Appeals of North Carolina
Filed
Sep 15, 1971
Status
Published
Author
Hedrick
On the bench
Hedrick, Mallard, Campbell
Cited by
2 cases
Authority
More cited than 56.8%

The opinion

HEDRICK, Judge.

By his first assignment of error, defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error in not sustaining his objection to plaintiff’s counsel’s reading portions of the amended pleadings in his argument to the jury.

In jury trials the whole case as well of law as of fact may be argued to the jury. G.S. 84-14;

Brown v. Vestal,

231 N.C. 56 , 55 S.E. 2d 797 (1949).

The trial judge has large discretion in controlling and directing the argument of counsel, but this does not include the right to deprive a litigant of the benefit of counsel’s argument when it is confined to the proper bounds and is addressed to

*399

material facts of the case.

Puett v. Railroad,

141 N.C. 332 , 53 S.E. 852 (1906).

We hold that the court did not commit prejudicial error by allowing counsel for plaintiff, over defendant’s objection, to read portions of the final pleadings upon which the case was tried in his argument to the jury.

Jackson v. Jones,

1 N.C. App. 71 , 159 S.E. 2d 580 (1968). This assignment of error is without merit.

We have carefully considered defendant’s three remaining assignments of error and find them to be without merit.

In the trial below we find no prejudicial error.

No error.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Campbell concur.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.