State v. Buckom

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Buckom

431 S.E.2d 776, 111 N.C. App. 240, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 705

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 20, 1993

DocketNo. 928SC1318

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 431 S.E.2d 776 (State v. Buckom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Buckom, 431 S.E.2d 776, 111 N.C. App. 240, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 705 (N.C. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

EAGLES, Judge.

In his first assignment of error defendant argues that the trial court erred by “instructing the jury, as part of an anti-deadlock instruction, that ‘the main purpose’ of trying to reconcile differences in further deliberations was to avoid an expensive retrial.” We agree.

The trial judge’s instruction that the jury should try to reconcile its differences because of the expense of a retrial, given after the foreperson announced they were unable to agree, constituted prejudicial error under opinions of both our Supreme Court and this Court. E.g. State v. Lipford, 302 N.C. 391, 276 S.E.2d 161 (1981); State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594, 268 S.E.2d 800 (1980); and State v. Johnson, 80 N.C. App. 311, 341 S.E.2d 770 (1986). Accordingly, defendant must receive a new trial.

We do not address the defendant’s remaining arguments as they may not arise at retrial.

New trial.

Judge GREENE concurs. Judge LEWIS dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

EAGLES, Judge.

In his first assignment of error defendant argues that the trial court erred by “instructing the jury, as part of an anti-deadlock instruction, that ‘the main purpose’ of trying to reconcile differences in further deliberations was to avoid an expensive retrial.” We agree.

The trial judge’s instruction that the jury should try to reconcile its differences because of the expense of a retrial, given after the foreperson announced they were unable to agree, constituted prejudicial error under opinions of both our Supreme Court and this Court. E.g. State v. Lipford, 302 N.C. 391, 276 S.E.2d 161 (1981); State v. Easterling, 300 N.C. 594, 268 S.E.2d 800 (1980); and State v. Johnson, 80 N.C. App. 311, 341 S.E.2d 770 (1986). Accordingly, defendant must receive a new trial.

We do not address the defendant’s remaining arguments as they may not arise at retrial.

New trial.

Judge GREENE concurs. Judge LEWIS dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

431 S.E.2d 776, 111 N.C. App. 240, 1993 N.C. App. LEXIS 705, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-buckom-ncctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack