Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

260 N.C. 580

State v. Godwin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 27, 1963

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1963-11-27

APPIrAL by defenda~iiit from Burgwyr~, E. J., Augusth 1963 Se~siion. o~ JOHNSTON. Crirnânal pa~oaeoutáon upon an ind'brn~ `c~rg~og d'efendiaiit with ~n oaaault with `a deadly weapon upon Billy Ray Carter w'iTtlh intent to kill a~esu1rt~ing in cerious injury. G.S. 14~32. Plea: Not guilty.

Cited by 4 later decisions — most recently September 1979

4 state decisions

Relies on State v. Spencer · State v. Gatlin · Edwards v. Hood Motor Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1963-11-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pee Cueiam.

¶1The State offered plenary evidence to carry the case to the jury on the offense charged in the indictment.

¶2Defendant .offered evidence tending to show an ¡alibi. He assigns as error the court’s charge on an alibi, which in effect placed the burden of proving an alibi on defendant. The assignment of error is good. S. v. Allison, 256 N.C. 240, 123 S.E. 2d 465; S. v. Spencer, 256 N.C. 487, 124 S.E. 2d 175; S. v. Walston, 259 N.C. 385, 130 S.E. 2d 636.

¶3Defendant assigns ¡as error the verdict as rendered, upon which the judgment is based, on the ground that the trial judge told them in effect what their verdict shall be. In S. v. Gatlin, 241 N.C. 175, 84 S.E. 2d 880, the Court quoted with approval from Edwards v. Motor Co., 235 N.C. 269, 69 S.E. 2d 550, ais follows: “ ‘Where the findings are indefinite or inconsistent, the presiding judge may give additional instructions and direct the jury to retire again .and bring in a proper verdict, but >he may not tell them what their verdict shall be’.” The assignment of error is good. The Attorney General in his brief states:

“Certainly, it would have been proper for the judge to have re-instructed the jury at this time as to the proper possible verdicts ■and directed the jury to retire for further consideration. However, in inquiring of the jury .as to whether the intended verdict was not that of .being guilty of the most serious offense charged, the judge created a situation which the State has difficulty in distinguishing from that in State v. Gatlin, supra,in which case the Court ordered a new trial.”

¶4The verdict .and judgment are vacated, and a new trial is ordered.

¶5New trial.

/260/nc/580 · .json · Public domain