State v. . Jackson

46 S.E.2d 858, 228 N.C. 656, 1948 N.C. LEXIS 312

• Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decided: March 24, 1948
• Status: Published

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

The case presents little more than issues of fact, determinable alone by the jury. All of the exceptions, here pressed, are directed to portions of the charge, and to the failure of the court to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence. G. S., 1-180.

First, the-defendant contends that by using the words, “tending to show” or “tends to show,” in arraying the evidence offered by the State, the court expressed an opinion on the weight of the evidence. The same expressions were used in reciting the defendant’s testimony. These expressions have been held not to impinge the provisions of the statute nor to constitute an expression of opinion on the facts. S. v. Howard, 222 N. C., 291, 22 S. E. (2d), 917; S. v. Harris, 213 N. C., 648, 197 S. E., 142; S. v. Jackson, 199 N. C., 321, 154 S. E., 402.

Just before concluding his charge to the jury, the trial court gave a special instruction at the instance of the prosecution, prefacing the same with the following direction: “If the court has at any time given you any instruction inconsistent with the instruction which I shall presently give you, then yoii will disregard any such former instruction to the extent of such inconsistency and be governed by the following mandate:” (Then follows the special instruction.)

While no particular harm seems to have resulted from this preliminary statement in the instant case, it is not to be approved as a general practice. The trial court ought not to submit his charge to the jury for elimination of inconsistencies. It is his duty to “state in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon.” . G. S., 1-180. The chief purposes of the charge are clarification of the issues, elimination of extraneous matters, and declaration and application of the law arising upon the evidence. Irvin v. R. R., 164 N. C., 6, 80 S. E., 78; S. v. Matthews, 78 N. C., 523; S. v. Dunlop, 65 N. C., 288. “The jury should see the issues, stripped of all redundant and confusing matters, and in as clear a light as practicable.” S. v. Wilson, 104 N. C., 868, 10 S. E., 315.

The record in this case is one of moving pathos. A frugal and hardworking couple of Swiss descent or ancestry, living peaceably in their humble home, meet with a monstrous tragedy in a land dedicated to their protection and welfare. Are there no preventives for such crimes ? S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323. Does the deterrence theory belong exclusively to the field of law enforcement? S. v. Phifer, 191 N. C., 729, 150 S. E., 352. A civilized State might well pause and ponder the matter.

The record is free from reversible error. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

EuviN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.