Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

79 N.C. 624

State v. . Austin

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided June 5, 1878

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1878-06-05

INDICTMENT for obtaining Signature by Ealse Pretence tried at Spring Term, 1878, of UnioN Superior Court, before Moore, J. This indictment was drawn under Bat.

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“Had the judge simply omitted to give an instruction to which the defendant would have been entitled, had he asked it, he would not have any just ground of complaint.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Burton v. . W. W. R. R.

“But when the judge undertakes to state the law, he must state it correctly.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Burton v. . W. W. R. R.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1878-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently May 1951

3 state decisions

10187818801890190019101920193019401950decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Smith, C. J.'

¶1 (After stating the case as above.) We discover no error in the ruling of the Court in regard to the evidence received, and no reason for excluding it was given to the Judge who tried the cause, and none has been pointed out on the argument here.

¶2 But the exceptions to the instructions given to the jury must be sustained'. There is a-fatal objection to the instructions, in that, they fail to call to the attention of the jury an important element in the offence charged, — the fraudulent intent of the defendant. Iiis guilt does not entirely depend upon the question of the genuineness of the signature to the assignment. If the defendant acted under the belief that Collins executed the assignment 'and subscribed his name thereto, although in fact he did not, the defence would be complete. The indictment alleges as well the intent to defraud as the overt act to make it successful, and both must be proved to warrant conviction. The Judge therefore did not correctly state the law, and his charge was calculated to mislead the jury.

¶3 Had the Judge simply omitted to give an instruction to which the defendant would have been entitled, had he asked *627 it, he would not have any just ground of complaint. It is the duty of counsel to ask for such instruction and give the Judge an opportunity to give or refuse it, and not to take the chances of a verdict, and if unfavorable, object that an unasked instruction was not given. But when the Judge undertakes to state the law, he must state it correctly. In defining an offence and the evidence required to establish it, an omission of an essential ingredient is a misdescription of the offence itself. The Court must administer the law correctly, and even an admission of counsel will not excuse an error in expounding its principles to the jury. State v. O’Neal, 7 Ire. 251; State v. Johnson, 1 Ire. 354; Bynum v. Bynum, 11 Ire. 632. Without adverting to other points presented in the argument, for the error in the charge the verdict must be set aside and a venire de novo awarded.

¶4 Error. Venire de novo.

/79/nc/624 · .json · Public domain