State v. . Graham

30 S.E.2d 154, 224 N.C. 351, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 361

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: May 24, 1944
• Status: Published

Opinion

BabNhill, J.

On certiorari issued from this Court the clerk of the Superior Court of Bladen County has certified that the original record, due to inadvertent omissions, is defective. He has also certified a corrected record including a copy of the warrant on which this defendant was tried. This effectively disposes of some of the assignments of error.

There are no exceptions to the admission or rejection of evidence, and there was no motion to dismiss as in case of nonsuit under G-. S., 15-173.

The defendant contends that there was error in the charge in that the court (1) submitted to the jury for consideration against this defendant evidence which was incompetent as against him and which had in fact been excluded; (2) submitted a charge of “aiding and abetting” when no such charge is contained in the warrant; and (3) so stated the contentions as to present a powerful “summing up” on behalf of the State, amounting to an expression of opinion.

The court instructed the jury that it might return a verdict of guilty or not guilty of (1) manufacturing illegal whiskey; (2) aiding and abetting in the manufacturing of illegal whiskey; or (3) possessing materials for the purpose of manufacturing intoxicating liquor. And later:

“So I instruct you, Gentlemen, that if the State has satisfied you from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that Macey Graham, on July 31, 1943, did manufacture illegal whiskey (or that he did aid and abet others in the manufacture of illegal whiskey) as that term has been defined to you by the Court, then it will be your duty to render a verdict of guilty of manufacturing illegal whiskey.”

Defendant excepts for that the warrant does not charge aiding and abetting. The exception cannot be sustained. •

One who aids and abets another in the commission of a misdemeanor is under the common law a principal and may be convicted as such. Furthermore, even if the statute, sec. 26, ch. 1, Public Laws 1923; G. S., 18-28, creates the separate and independent offense of “aiding and abetting” there was no verdict thereon, and the defendant has suffered nO' harm. We may add, however, that we do not accept defendant’s view as to the force and effect of the instruction.

The court summarized the evidence fairly and impartially. Its statement of the contentions was brief and to the point. Those of the defend ant were as fully and fairly reviewed as were those of the State. In this respect 'the charge presents no just cause for complaint by the defendant.

The other exceptions likewise fail to disclose any substantial merit. Discussion thereof would serve no useful purpose. The verdict and judgment must be sustained.

No error.