Case Title: State v. Maready

Citation: 153 S.E.2d 483, 269 N.C. 750

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1967-03-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
153 S.E.2d 483 (1967) 269 N.C. 750 STATE v. Norwood G. MAREADY. No. 170. Supreme Court of North Carolina. March 29, 1967. T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and William W. Melvin, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State. B. R. Batts, Wallace, for defendant appellant. PLESS, Justice. We have fully considered all of the defendant's assignments of error, and find them to be without substantial merit, with one exception. In the charge, the court stated a contention by the State which was probably argued to the jury by the Solicitor. It is that the State says and contends that the defendant was under the influence, and that Officer Rich has no particular interest or bias towards him, that he is a police officer for the Town of Wallace and it is his duty to see that the law is complied with as near as he can, "and that his only interest is in seeing that the law is complied with and to protect innocent people operating their automobiles, to keep people off the highways when they are driving so that they won't run into and tear up and kill and injure people who are abiding by the law". *484 While an argument of this general nature by the Solicitor would be permissible, we feel that its repetition by the Judge, even though stated as a contention, gave it an emphasis that would weigh too heavily upon the defendant. The following quotation from State v. Smith, 240 N.C. 99, 81 S.E.2d 263 is applicable here: It is said in State v. Simpson, 233 N.C. 438, 64 S.E.2d 568: Other exceptions need not be discussed, since we hold the quoted section of the charge to be prejudicial. We are constrained to hold that the defendant is entitled to a New trial.