Case Title: State v. Allen

Citation: 196 S.E.2d 256, 283 N.C. 354

Docket Number: 

State: north-carolina

Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

Date: 1973-05-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
196 S.E.2d 256 (1973)
283 N.C. 354
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Earl Stewart ALLEN.
No. 70.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
May 9, 1973.
*258 Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Asst. Atty. Gen. Walter E. Ricks, III, for the State.
George S. Daly, Jr., and Walter H. Bennett, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
MOORE, Justice.
Defendant's assignments of error all relate to matters wherein defendant claims the presiding judge unfairly commented on the evidence or otherwise made prejudicial remarks, contrary to the provisions of G.S. § 1-180.
In considering these assignments, we apply the following general principles. This statute imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality. Nowell v. Neal, 249 N.C. 516, 107 S.E.2d 107 (1959). It forbids the judge to intimate his opinion in any form whatever, "it being the intent of the law to insure to each and every litigant a fair and impartial trial before the jury." State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E.2d 378 (1946). It has been construed to include any opinion or intimation of the judge at any time during the trial which is calculated to prejudice either of the parties in the eyes of the jury. State v. Douglas, 268 N.C. 267, 150 S.E.2d 412 (1966); Everette v. Lumber Co., 250 N.C. 688, 110 S.E.2d 288 (1959). "The trial judge occupies an exalted station. Jurors entertain great respect for his opinion, and are easily influenced by any suggestion coming from him. As a consequence, he must abstain from conduct or language which tends to discredit or prejudice the accused or his cause with the jury. G.S. § 1-180." State v. Carter, 233 N.C. 581, 65 S.E.2d 9 (1951). See also State v. Belk and State v. Pearson and State v. Berry, 268 N.C. 320, 150 S.E.2d 481 (1966).
Defendant assigns as error the following specific incidents which occurred during the trial.
First, when Officer Wagner was testifying for the State, he was asked by the solicitor:
*259 Defendant contends that the court intimated that a defense witness had an odor of alcohol about him at the time to which he testified. This contention is obviously without merit. Defendant objected to the answer given by the witness as not being responsive. The court, as a result of this objection, simply explained the meaning of the word "demeanor." Wagner had already testified, without objection, that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol on his breath at the time of the alleged assault.
Defendant next contends that the court erred when it stated to defendant's witness Harold Dayberry: "Talk like you did that night, Mr. Witness. Maybe they can hear you." Before this statement was made, the following occurred:
After the defendant objected, the court stated:
Obviously, the court was having difficulty with this witness in getting him to speak out so he could be understood. The statement made by the court to which the defendant objected was clearly an effort to get the witness to speak louder. Since the record does not contain the testimony of defendant's witnesses, we do not know what the testimony disclosed as to the tone Dayberry used on the night in question. The language used by the court, while not as circumspect as it might have been, was not so objectionable as to constitute prejudicial error.
See also State v. Alexander, 279 N.C. 527, 184 S.E.2d 274 (1971); State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E.2d 476 (1970).
The defendant next contends that the court erred in making this statement: "Mr. Sheriff, don't let any of those witnesses contact any of these jurors at all." *260 Defendant contends that by this statement the court intimated that defense witnesses might attempt to speak with the jurors. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the judge was speaking any more to defense witnesses than he was to the State's witnesses. Moreover, this sentence was only a part of a statement made by the judge to the jury when the court recessed for the day. The full statement is as follows:
Patently, that assignment is without merit.
Defendant next contends that the court in its charge to the jury implied that the State had proved that the prosecuting witness had been stabbed or cut. When recounting the evidence, the court stated that Sheila Owens, a witness for defendant, testified that she did not see the defendant stab or cut the patrolman and that neither did other witnesses for the defendant naming part of themand then stated: "Now, you may have a different recollection. If you do, you take your recollection. That the patrolman Wagner is the only one who testified that this defendant Allen stabbed him or cut him with a knife. I don't recall any of the defendant's witnesses seeing the patrolman cut or stabbed." This is apparently a correct statement of the testimony. In the case on appeal, the testimony for the defendant is not brought forward but is only summarized in a brief statement. Nowhere in the record do we find anything that approximates a narrative statement of the evidence for the defendant. Under Rule 19(4), Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, this is not sufficient. State v. Prince, 270 N.C. 769, 154 S.E.2d 897 (1967); State v. Powell, 238 N.C. 550, 78 S.E.2d 343 (1953). Hence, no error is shown.
Defendant in this same connection further contends that the court implied that the defendant had used a weapon to cut the prosecuting witness when the court stated: "You just arrive at it [intent] from the conduct of the party, the type of weapon, and the place where it was inflicted, if you find that it was." The full charge as to intent to kill as given by the court was as follows:
*261 This charge is substantially as approved by this Court in many well-considered opinions. State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E.2d 626 (1964); State v. Cauley, 244 N.C. 701, 94 S.E.2d 915 (1956); State v. Murdock, 225 N.C. 224, 34 S.E.2d 69 (1945); State v. Oxendine, 224 N.C. 825, 32 S.E.2d 648 (1944).
The solicitor and the attorney for the defendant were unable to agree, and it was necessary for the presiding judge to settle the case on appeal. G.S. § 1-283. Defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to include in the case on appeal reference to three incidents which occurred during the trial. These are as follows:
Defendant contends that the court should not intimate that the status of being a defendant is unfortunate or that defendant is required or expected to have witnesses, and that the court should not make an errand boy of a chief prosecuting witness.
It is difficult to see how defendant could have been prejudiced by the omission of these three incidents from the case on appeal. The first incident referred to a group of children visiting the court, and the presiding judge welcomed them and quite properly stated that he hoped they would return to court from time to time but that they would not return as defendants. The inquiry as to the number of witnesses which the defendant would calland the defendant did in fact offer the testimony of 13 witnesseswas only to give the presiding judge some idea as to the length of time the trial would require. Patrolman Bennett was the arresting officer in the case in which Hamrick had previously entered a plea of guilty of driving while intoxicated, and it was the duty of this officer after the plea of guilty to pick up defendant Hamrick's operator's license. None of these incidents had any bearing on defendant's defense or tended to prejudice him in any manner. Had the judge seen fit to include these three incidents in the case on appeal, defendant's case would have been in no wise strengthened. Be that as it may, these assignments are not properly before us.
Defendant's exceptions taken at the time the case on appeal was settled are not reviewable on this record.
In the trial we find no error.
No Error.