Case Name: STATE v. GEORGE E. PRITCHARD
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1947-02-26
Citations: 227 N.C. 168
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. GEORGE E. PRITCHARD.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 227
Pages: 168–170

Head Matter:
STATE v. GEORGE E. PRITCHARD.
(Filed 26 February, 1947.)
1. Criminal Raw § 81c (2)—
The court’s statement of contentions will not be held for reversible error even if inexact in some particulars when the alleged error is without material significance on the record.
2. Criminal Raw § 81c (1): Attorney and Client § 4—
A party is entitled to appear in propria persona, G. S., 1-11, and when a defendant insists upon this right notwithstanding his ability to employ counsel, and- the efforts of .the trial judge to assign him counsel, it cannot be pressed successfully on appeal that he was prejudiced by the action of the trial court in failing to provide counsel and in permitting him wide latitude in the introduction of evidence.
3. Elections § 23e—
In this prosecution for willfully publishing and circulating false reports, derogatory on their-face, against a candidate with intent to affect the chances for nomination, G. S., 1.63-196 (11), no prejudicial error in the trial was made to appear and therefore the verdict and judgment is upheld.
Appeal by defendant from Hamilton, Special Judge, at September Term, 1946, of Beaueobt.
Criminal prosecution on warrant charging tbe defendant with publishing and causing to be circulated in a Camden County Primary Election held 25 May, 1946, derogatory reports concerning W. I. Halstead, a candidate for nomination to tbe office of Representative in tbe General Assembly.
Tbe record recites an arraignment of tbe defendant under tbe warrant, but omits .to record bis plea. At tbe instance of tbe defendant, tbe cause was removed to Beaufort County. A trial was there bad, and tbe jury returned a verdict of guilty. Tbe defendant was sentenced to 12 months on tbe roads. He appeals, assigning as error certain contentions given by tbe court in its charge to tbe jury and tbe failure of tbe court to assign him counsel for tbe bearing.
Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.
H. S. Ward for defendant.

Opinion:
Stacy, C. J.
Tbe record reveals an unusual proceeding — manifestly difficult to conduct. Tbe defendant insisted on trying bis own case, which be bad a right to do under tbe statute. G. S., 1-11. He proved to be a poor lawyer and an unwise client. After conviction, be employed counsel to prosecute an appeal. This has been done with as much skill as tbe record would permit.
It appears that tbe defendant took tbe witness stand and admitted tbe publication and circulation of tbe reports as alleged in tbe warrant. They are derogatory on their face. Tbe jury found that they were false and were circulated willfully, with intent to affect tbe chances for nomination of tbe candidate named. This resulted in a conviction under tbe statute, G. S., 163-196, subsection 11, and judgment as abové indicated.
Apparently tbe defendant sought to defend tbe publication and circulation of tbe reports on tbe ground that they were supported by personal transactions which be previously bad with tbe candidate. Tbe jury did not accept bis version of tbe matter. In fact, all tbe evidence was to tbe contrary, save that of tbe defendant's own expression of belief.
Tbe exceptions addressed to tbe statement of contentions are pointed in tbe main to matters other than tbe truthfulness of tbe charges. Even if inexact in some particulars, they would seem to be without material significance on tbe record as presented.
Tbe failure to provide tbe defendant with counsel cannot be held for error in tbe light of tbe trial. He was able to pay counsel, but preferred "to go it alone." Abernethy v. Burns, 206 N. C., 370, 173 S. E., 899. Indeed, tbe court sought to assign tbe defendant counsel, showed him every consideration, and gave him a wide latitude in tbe introduction of evidence. This liberality, it is now suggested, while otherwise intended, was in reality hurtful to tbe defendant. Gibbs v. Russ, 223 N. C., 349, 26 S. E. (2d), 909; Midgett v. Nelson, 212 N. C., 41, 192 S. E., 854; Morgan v. Benefit Society, 167 N. C., 262, 83 S. E., 479. Tbe point was seriously pressed at bar, but we are unable to perceive wherein the defendant was prejudiced by the action of the trial court. His conviction was induced by his own testimony.
No irregularity sufficient to upset the verdict or the judgment has been made to appear. Hence the result:
No error.