State v. Cuthrell

63 S.E.2d 549, 233 N.C. 274, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 574
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedFebruary 28, 1951
Docket2
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 63 S.E.2d 549 (State v. Cuthrell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Cuthrell, 63 S.E.2d 549, 233 N.C. 274, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 574 (N.C. 1951).

Opinion

EkviN, J.

The first count in the indictment is bottomed upon the statute codified as G.S. 14-62.

A plea of not guilty to a criminal charge puts in issue every fact necessary to establish the guilt of the accused. S. v. Meyers, 190 N.C. 239, 129 S.E. 600; S. v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799, 128 S.E. 152.

"Where such plea is entered in a prosecution for common law arson or for the statutory felony of burning a building contrary to G.S. 14-62, it *276 is incumbent on the State to prove both the corpus delicti, and the connection of the accused with the crime. 6 C.J.S., Arson, section 29. The corpus delicti in such prosecution consists of two elements: the fire, and the cause of the fire. Annotation: 13 Ann. Cas. 803-804. The fire must be incendiary in origin. S. v. Church, 202 N.C. 692, 163 S.E. 874.

The statement of Sheriff Stevens, who visited the premises subsequent to the fire, that in his opinion the building was “set afire” is clearly incompetent. This is not a case for opinion evidence. The physical facts, which are the subject of the investigation, are so simple that they can be readily understood by the jury when properly described by the witness, and the jury is as well qualified as the witness to draw the appropriate inference from them, Stansbury on North Carolina Evidence, section 124; Wigmore on Evidence (3rd Ed.), section 1926.

The conclusion that the trial judge erred in admitting the statement of Sheriff Stevens has explicit support in well considered cases in other jurisdictions expressly excluding evidence of opinions of witnesses as to the incendiary nature of fires. S. v. Nolan, 48 Kan. 723, 29 P. 568, 30 P. 486; People v. Grutz, 212 N.Y. 72, 105 N.E. 843, L.R.A. 1915 D, 229, Ann. Gas. 1915 D, 167. See also: Sawyer v. State, 100 Fla. 1603, 132 So. 188; Wharton’s Criminal Evidence (11th Ed.), section 956. It likewise has implicit support in our own decisions concerning related evidential matters. Deppe v. R. R., 154 N.C. 523, 70 S.E. 622; Cogdell v. R. R., 132 N.C. 852, 44 S.E. 618; Burwell v. Sneed, 104 N.C. 118, 10 S.E. 152.

The defendant’s plea of not guilty denied the existence of the corpus delicti, and thus raised the precise issue whether the defendant’s alleged accomplice, Bobby Gene Bowers, wantonly and willfully burned the building in question. The opinion of Sheriff Stevens, the chief law enforcement officer of Camden County, that the fire was of incendiary origin may have tipped the scales in favor of the prosecution, and induced the jury to resolve this crucial issue against the accused. This being so, the receipt of such opinion in evidence constitutes prejudicial error, entitling the defendant to a

New trial.

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

Related

State v. Sharpless
725 S.E.2d 894 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2012)
State v. Hales
474 S.E.2d 328 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1996)
State v. Shaw
417 S.E.2d 262 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1992)
State v. Sheetz
265 S.E.2d 914 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Fulton
263 S.E.2d 608 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Smith
239 S.E.2d 610 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Caron
219 S.E.2d 68 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Lindley
210 S.E.2d 207 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Sargent
205 S.E.2d 768 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Reavis
199 S.E.2d 139 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Whitted
187 S.E.2d 391 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Hall
181 S.E.2d 240 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Vestal
180 S.E.2d 755 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Dawson
180 S.E.2d 140 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
Beanblossom v. Thomas
146 S.E.2d 36 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1966)
State v. Paglino
319 S.W.2d 613 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1958)
State v. Swaringen
105 S.E.2d 99 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Commonwealth v. Nasuti
123 A.2d 435 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1956)
Horner v. Chamber of Commerce of Burlington, Inc.
68 S.E.2d 660 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1952)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 S.E.2d 549, 233 N.C. 274, 1951 N.C. LEXIS 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cuthrell-nc-1951.