Title: State v. Carriker

State: north-carolina

Issuer: North Carolina Supreme Court

Document:

215 S.E.2d 134 (1975)
STATE of North Carolina
v.
Teddy Lee CARRIKER.
No. 103.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.
June 6, 1975.
*136 Atty. Gen. Rufus L. Edmisten and Asst. Atty. Gen. James E. Magner, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
Clarence C. Boyan, High Point, for defendant-appellant.
MOORE, Justice.
When court opened on the day of the trial of this case, the jurors for the term were called and sworn and thereafter remained in the courtroom. The district attorney then called the first case on the calendar, State v. Bell. That defendant entered a plea of guilty of possession of marijuana. Before passing sentence in that case, the presiding judge made certain remarks as hereinafter partially summarized. Shortly after judgment was imposed in the Bell case, the district attorney called defendant's case. Before pleading to the indictment charging him with distribution of marijuana, defendant moved for a continuance for the term due to the remarks made by the judge before sentencing Bell. Prior to ruling on this motion, defendant's attorney, Mr. Lea, accompanied by the court reporter, conferred with the presiding judge in chambers. There the following exchange took place:
Defendant's attorney contends that the comments made by the presiding judge before the jury panel were actually much more extensive and prejudicial than those preserved for the record and set out above.
*137 By his first assignment of error defendant alleges that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance due to the fact that the remarks made by the court before the jury panel prejudiced his right to a fair trial. Neither the State nor defendant has cited a North Carolina case nor has our research discovered one which deals directly with the question here involved. The general rule is stated in Annot., 89 A.L.R.2d 197, 234, as follows:
See 75 Am.Jur.2d, Trial §§ 91, 92, pp. 194-95 (1974).
Many decisions have warned that remarks made before prospective jurors must be engaged in with the greatest of care and that the judge must be careful not to make any statement or suggestion likely to influence the decision of the jurors when called upon later to sit in a given case. In Gross v. Commonwealth, 256 S.W.2d 366 (Ky. 1953), Commonwealth insisted that the remarks of the presiding judge made on the first day of the term to the prospective jurors could not have prejudiced them as this case was not tried until the 17th day thereof. The trial judge there had stated from the bench to the members of the prospective jury, in substance, that they would never convict anyone for violating the liquor laws if they accepted the testimony of defendants charged with such offenses. This statement was not directed to the defendants in that case or any other particular defendant charged with such violations. Holding that these remarks were error, the Kentucky Court of Appeals stated:
Accord, Mele v. Becker, 1 Mich.App. 172, 134 N.W.2d 846 (1965).
G.S. § 1-180, which requires a judge to explain the law but to give no opinion on the facts, refers by its terms to the charge of the judge to the jury. Nonetheless, it has long been construed to forbid the judge to convey to the trial jury in any way at any stage of the trial his opinion on the facts involved in the case. State v. Holden, 280 N.C. 426, 185 S.E.2d 889 (1972); State v. Atkinson, 278 N.C. 168, 179 S.E.2d 410 (1971); State v. Walker, 266 N.C. 269, 145 S.E.2d 833 (1966); State v. Williamson, 250 N.C. 204, 108 S.E.2d 443 (1959); State v. Smith, 240 N.C. 99, 81 S.E.2d 263 (1954); State v. Cook, 162 N.C. 586, 77 S.E. 759 (1913). There is language in our cases to the effect that G.S. § 1-180 is not applicable until the case is called to trial. State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E.2d 594 (1943); State v. Jacobs, 106 N.C. 695, 10 S.E. 1031 (1890).
In State v. Canipe, 240 N.C. 60, 81 S.E.2d 173 (1954), we held that G.S. § 1-180 was violated when the trial judge inadvertently communicated his opinion of the facts in the case by his remarks or questions to prospective jurors during the selection of the jury. And as we said in the oft-quoted *138 case of Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C. 184, 56 S.E. 855 (1907):
Accord, State v. Greene, 285 N.C. 482, 489, 206 S.E.2d 229, 233 (1974).
In addition to G.S. § 1-180, and apparently to supplement it, the General Assembly enacted G.S. § 1-180.1 to further prevent the trial judge from invading the province of the jury. This statute in part provides:
This statute by its express terms applies to comments made by the presiding judge concerning verdicts rendered during the session. However, we fail to see how comments made by the judge in the presence of the jury panel concerning a verdict of guilty could be more prejudicial than the same remarks made concerning a plea of guilty. Such comments violate the spirit if not the letter of G.S. § 1-180.1.
The central question is whether or not the language complained of might have so affected the prospective jury panel that it was likely defendant would be deprived of a fair and impartial trial. In the present case the prospective jurors were put on notice by the trial judge that marijuana was a habit-forming drug; that once the habit was formed "anything goes"; that it led to robbery or anything else to get money; and that all or many of those charged with such offenses "get religion" when they come into court. Surely the prospective jurors could logically infer from these remarks that defendants charged with similar offenses should be convicted, and that when apprehended and brought into court many such defendants would attempt to deceive the court by "getting religion." The probable effect or influence upon the jury, and not the motive of the judge, determines whether the party whose right to a fair trial has been impaired is entitled to a new trial. State v. Canipe, supra; State v. Smith, supra. That the remarks were an inadvertence on the part of the able and experienced judge renders the comments nonetheless harmful. Burkey v. Kornegay, 261 N.C. 513, 135 S.E.2d 204 (1964); Miller v. R. R., 240 N.C. 617, 83 S.E.2d 533 (1954).
G.S. § 1-180.1 also expressly provides that "[t]he provisions of this section shall not be applicable upon the hearing of motions for a new trial, motions to set aside the verdict of a jury, or a motion made in arrest of judgment." Hence, in order to obtain the benefit of the statute a defendant must, as defendant did in this case, move for a continuance.
The comments made by the trial judge concerning cases involving marijuana, coming shortly before defendant's case was called, entitled defendant to a continuance, *139 and it was error for the trial judge to overrule defendant's motion.
We see no merit in defendant's other assignment of error, but for the reasons stated defendant is entitled to a new trial.
The case is remanded to the North Carolina Court of Appeals with direction that it remand it to the Superior Court of Davidson County for a new trial in accordance with the principles herein stated.
New trial.