Court Opinion

ID: 9854823
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:14:41.960626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:27.568433
License: Public Domain

Pless, J.,
dissenting: We have here a conflict of decisions of this Court. Which shall prevail?
While this Court has held for many years that the voluntariness of an alleged confession is for determination by the Judge in the absence of the jury, it was not until a few months ago that it went so far as to say (in S. v. Herbert B. Walker, 266 N.C. 269, 145 S.E. 2d 833) that a statement to the jury that an alleged confession was voluntary constituted an expression of opinion that was reversible error. Pursuant to that decision the majority has ordered a third trial in this case.
But — -the Court is overlooking, and ignoring, in my opinion, a much more important, well established and practical line of decisions. Every court everywhere says that to justify a new trial the error should be such that without it, a different result might have been expected. The error must be “substantial”, prejudicial and harmful.
We said in S. v. King, 225 N.C. 236, 34 S.E. 2d 3, “To warrant a new trial it should be made to appear that the ruling complained of was material and prejudicial to the defendant’s rights, and that a different result would have likely ensued.”
Can it be reasonably argued that if the Judge had not made the statement attributed to him that the defendant would probably have been acquitted? The victims had identified him, he was seen in the vicinity and he voluntarily confessed his guilt. If the Judge just had not referred to his finding of voluntariness his conviction would stand. We send it back for a third trial at much expense and add to already over-crowded dockets. All this in obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis as respects the Walker case — but disregarding the doctrine in the much more important, self-imposed (but here forgotten) rule requiring substantial, harmful and prejudicial error probably causing a different result.
Does the majority predict a verdict of acquittal when the next judge doesn’t let the jury know that he has found the defendant’s confession voluntary? That was not the history of the Walker case. This very week we are again hearing his appeal. He has now had the new trial awarded him last January. Without the allegedly substantial error being repeated in it he has again been convicted.
Since a defendant can now appeal without reason, cause, or expense to himself, I predict the defendant’s conviction will be before us again within a few months. And nothing will have been gained.