Court Opinion

ID: 9809490
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 21:15:12.24302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:35.761050
License: Public Domain

Clarkson, J.,
dissenting: The record in this case contains some 144 pages and the court below took a long time in trying the action. The charge of the court is 22 pages. In substance, his Honor set forth what the witnesses testified to, both for the State and the defendant. He defined accurately what constituted the crime of perjury and what evidence sufficient to convict. He then gave the contentions of the State *155and defendant fully and in detail. He also charged the burden was on the State as to reasonable doubt.
The main opinion gives a new trial solely on exceptions to the charge. By an examination of the charge, no exceptions have been taken to the charge in accordance with the long established rule of this Court. Then, again, if the exceptions were properly taken they were to contentions and the defendant nowhere in the charge objected to the same. S. v. Sinodis, 189 N. C., 565. In regard to scrutinizing the testimony of defendant, if the charge is taken as a whole the extract complained of, if error, was not prejudicial or reversible error, as the rule was substantially complied with.
This matter has been thoroughly considered in Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., 428, citing a wealth of authorities and the method of exceptions and assignments of error set forth so as the profession can follow same. Speaking to the subject, on p. 431, it is said:
“Under C. S., 643, supra, and the decisions of this Court, the appellant must make ‘specific’ exceptions to the charge of the court below, stating separately in articles numbered the errors alleged.
“For example: Suppose the court below instructed or charged the jury as follows: (‘The principle is well established that not only is a person who offers or attempts by violence to injure the person of another guilty of an assault, but no one, by the show of violence, has the right to put another in fear and thereby force him to leave a place where he has the right to be.’) To the foregoing charge in parentheses, or quotation, as the case may be, the plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be, excepted.
“Exception No. 1.
“Battery is (‘Any unlawful beating, or other wrongful physical violence or constraint, inflicted on a human being without his consent.’) To the foregoing charge in parentheses, or quotation, plaintiff, or defendant, as the case may be, excepted.
“Exception No. 2.
“(‘The actual offer to use force to the injury of another is assault; the use of it is battery; hence, the two terms are commonly combined in the term “assault and battery.” ’) To the foregoing charge in parentheses, or quotation, the plaintiff, or defendant, as the case may be, excepted.
“Exception No. 3.
“Of course, it goes without saying that the appellant shall also set out in the assignments of error any exceptions taken during the trial in apt time to the admission or exclusion of testimony, or to rulings of the court on other matters. Those exceptions relating to the exclusion or admission of testimony, when brought forward into the assignments of error, shall reiterate, verbatim, such testimony. Exceptions to the charge can, if desired, be lettered a, b, c, etc.”
*156By reading the entire charge in this case, it can be seen the -wisdom of the rule for taking the charge conjunctive and not disjunctive, there is no error that defendant can complain of. Rawls v. Lupton, supra,, has been approved in Chamberlain v. Sou. Dyeing Co., 193 N. C., 850; State v. Ashe, 196 N. C., 387 (391); Murphy v. Power Co., 196 N. C., 484 (493) ; Gibbs v. Tel. Co., 196 N. C., 517 (523) ; Clark v. Laurel Park Estates, 196 N. C., 624 (633); Pruitt v. Wood, 199 N. C., 788 (791); Roberts v. Davis, 200 N. C., 424 (426); Miller v. Bottling Co., 204 N. C., 608 (609); Lynn v. Silk Mills, 208 N. C., 7 (13).
In Clark v. Laurel Park Estates, supra, at p. 633, we find: “The exceptions to the charge should be made as pointed out in Rawls v. Lupton, 193 N. C., p. 428, at p. 432. It is there said: ‘Continuity of the charge is necessary with the “specific” exceptions. Anything else is unfair to the trial judge — -to have his charge cut up in piecemeal and disconnected.’ ”
For the reasons stated, I think in the judgment of the court below there is no error.