Court Opinion

ID: 9585290
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:58:38.766158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:55.280816
License: Public Domain

Higgins, J.,
dissenting.
I am unable to agree with that part of the opinion which states: “The judgments as in case of nonsuit were entered on the ground the evidence offered by the State was insufficient to warrant submission to the jury and to support the verdicts of guilty.” Of course, if such were the case, the State ordinarily would not have the right of appeal and the appeal should be dismissed. Here is the judgment according to the record: “The court ruled that the State proved a prima facie case pursuant to G.S. 113-109(b), but holds that said section establishes a standard for a prima facie case that is so vague as to render it unconstitutional. As to each defendant the motion is allowed.” (emphasis added.) What did Judge Hubbard hold was unconstitutional? Unquestionably, to me at least, he held G.S. 113-109 (b) unconstitutional upon the ground of vagueness in that part of the statute relating to a prima facie case. Such seems to me to be the plain and inescapable meaning of the judgment. Judge Hubbard dismissed the cases because of the unconstitutionality of the Act, or part of the Act. What difference does it make whether the statute goes out because it is unconstitutional in part or in toto?
The Congress and the Legislatures have power to prescribe what facts or group of facts shall be considered evidence of the existence of the ultimate fact of guilt. The ultimate fact of guilt is usually a conclusion from other facts. However, the Federal and State Constitutions prescribe limits which the Congress and the Legislatures may not transgress. These limits cannot go beyond due process. Tot v. U. S., 319 U.S. 463; 12 Am. Jur., Constitutional Law, § 552; 20 Am. Jur., Evidence, §§ 9 and 11; State v. Hales, 256 N.C. 27, 122 S.E. 2d 768; State v. Scoggin, 236 N.C. 1, 72 S.E. 2d 97.
When a criminal Act of the Legislature is held unconstitutional by the trial court, the State may appeal. G.S. 15-179(6). The effect of the Court’s opinion in this case is to say that although Judge Hubbard held the Act (or part of the Act) unconstitutional, the State cannot appeal; and solely upon that ground he undertook to dismiss the case. How could the State ever appeal when a defendant is discharged because of the unconstitutionality of a statute?
*110Frankly, I am inclined to believe that under the authorities the Legislature was within its power when it fixed (in addition to G.S. 113-109 (b)) the facts which make out a prima facie case. Washington v. Person, 352 P. 2d 189. I am not in favor of dismissing this case without facing up to the constitutional question involved, and I vote against dismissing the appeal.
Pless, J., joins in the dissenting opinion.