State v. Hooker

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Hooker

90 S.E.2d 690, 243 N.C. 429, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 343

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 13, 1956

Docket724

StatusPublished

Cited by27 cases

This text of 90 S.E.2d 690 (State v. Hooker) 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. Hooker, 90 S.E.2d 690, 243 N.C. 429, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 343 (N.C. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

WiNBORNE, J.

In apt time defendant, appellant, in writing requested the trial court to give these special instructions:

“1. In North Carolina, a defendant may be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, if the jury is satisfied from such testimony and beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt; and, in this case, the witnesses Purcell and Williams are which is known in law as accomplices; and their testimony as to the guilt of the defendant is unsupported by any other evidence.

“2. However, the court further instructs you that it is dangerous to convict a defendant upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice; that it will be dangerous to convict the defendant in this case upon the testimony of Purcell and Williams, although it is your duty to do so if their testimony has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt of the *431 defendant’s guilt; and that it is your duty to scrutinize their testimony with caution and with care and in the light of their interest and bias, if any, in the case.”

The court refused to give either of these instructions, and to the failure to do so, defendant excepted, and assigns same as error.

While the court is not required to give the instruction in the exact language of the request, if request be made for a specific instruction, which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the court must give the instruction at least in substance. S. v. Booker, 123 N.C. 713, 31 S.E. 376; S. v. Henderson, 206 N.C. 830, 175 S.E. 201; S. v. Pennell, 232 N.C. 573, 61 S.E. 2d 593.

Indeed, here the requested instructions find support in decisions of this Court. S. v. Barber, 113 N.C. 711, 18 S.E. 515; S. v. Williams, 185 N.C. 643, 116 S.E. 570; S. v. Ashburn, 187 N.C. 717, 122 S.E. 833.

However, the court did give general instructions in this respect. But defendant contends, and we think rightly so, that the charge as given by the court failed to cover substantially the matters included in the requested instruction in that: The court failed to instruct the jury (1) “that Purcell and Williams were actually accomplices, according to their testimony,” and (2) “that their testimony as to defendant’s participation in the alleged offense was unsupported by any other evidence in the case.”

For error thus pointed out, there must be a

New trial.

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

WiNBORNE, J.

In apt time defendant, appellant, in writing requested the trial court to give these special instructions:

“1. In North Carolina, a defendant may be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, if the jury is satisfied from such testimony and beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt; and, in this case, the witnesses Purcell and Williams are which is known in law as accomplices; and their testimony as to the guilt of the defendant is unsupported by any other evidence.

“2. However, the court further instructs you that it is dangerous to convict a defendant upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice; that it will be dangerous to convict the defendant in this case upon the testimony of Purcell and Williams, although it is your duty to do so if their testimony has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt of the *431 defendant’s guilt; and that it is your duty to scrutinize their testimony with caution and with care and in the light of their interest and bias, if any, in the case.”

The court refused to give either of these instructions, and to the failure to do so, defendant excepted, and assigns same as error.

While the court is not required to give the instruction in the exact language of the request, if request be made for a specific instruction, which is correct in itself and supported by evidence, the court must give the instruction at least in substance. S. v. Booker, 123 N.C. 713, 31 S.E. 376; S. v. Henderson, 206 N.C. 830, 175 S.E. 201; S. v. Pennell, 232 N.C. 573, 61 S.E. 2d 593.

Indeed, here the requested instructions find support in decisions of this Court. S. v. Barber, 113 N.C. 711, 18 S.E. 515; S. v. Williams, 185 N.C. 643, 116 S.E. 570; S. v. Ashburn, 187 N.C. 717, 122 S.E. 833.

However, the court did give general instructions in this respect. But defendant contends, and we think rightly so, that the charge as given by the court failed to cover substantially the matters included in the requested instruction in that: The court failed to instruct the jury (1) “that Purcell and Williams were actually accomplices, according to their testimony,” and (2) “that their testimony as to defendant’s participation in the alleged offense was unsupported by any other evidence in the case.”

For error thus pointed out, there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

90 S.E.2d 690, 243 N.C. 429, 1956 N.C. LEXIS 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hooker-nc-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack