State v. . Arrowood

122 S.E. 759, 187 N.C. 715, 1924 N.C. LEXIS 385

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 14, 1924
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, J.,

after stating the case: At the close of the evidence, his Honor instructed the jury as follows: “Gentlemen of the jury, if you believe tbis evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, you will return a verdict of guilty. Take tbe case.” Tbe defendant excepts to tbis instruction, and tbe same is assigned as error. Tbe exception is well .taken, and, under a uniform line of decisions, it must be beld for reversible error. S. v. Murphrey, 186 N. C., 113; S. v. Estes, 185 N. C., 752; S. v. Alley, 180 N. C., 663; S. v. Boyd, 175 N. C., 793.

Tbe defendant entered on tbe trial witb tbe common-law presumption of innocence in bis favor. His plea of not guilty cast upon tbe State tbe burden of establishing bis guilt, not merely to tbe satisfaction of tbe jury, but beyond a reasonable doubt. Tbe evidence bere was not compelling. Tbe jury might have been satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, of tbe truth of all that was said by tbe witnesses, and yet acquitted tbe defendant. “If any person shall, by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of tbe dead body of a new-born child, endeavor to conceal tbe birth of such child, such person shall be guilty of a felony,” is tbe language, in part, of tbe statute under which tbe defendant stands indicted. C. S., 4228. Furthermore, it is error for tbe trial court to direct a verdict in a criminal prosecution where there is no admission or ime-sumption calling for explanation or reply on tbe part of tbe defendant. S. v. Hite, 141 N. C., 769; S. v. Riley, 113 N. C., 651.

New trial.