State v. Lackey

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Lackey

111 S.E.2d 891, 251 N.C. 686, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 536

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 14, 1960

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 S.E.2d 891 (State v. Lackey) 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. Lackey, 111 S.E.2d 891, 251 N.C. 686, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 536 (N.C. 1960).

Pincite

Opinion

Winbokne, C. J.

Among the assignments of error presented by defendant is that based: upon exception to the closing instruction given by the court to the jury in this language: “The court further in[689]*689structs you that if you find the facts to be as all of this evidence tends to show and you so find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged.”

Decisions of this Court indicate that the exception is well taken. See S. v. Godwin, 227 N.C. 449, 42 S.E. 2d 617, where as here there is no admission or presumption calling for explanation or reply on the part of defendant. There the court said that the peremptory character of the instruction, almost identical with the above, would seem to be in excess of approved practice. And it is there declared that it is only in rare instances that a verdict may be directed for the State in a criminal prosecution.

Moreover, “the plea of not guilty disputes the credibility of the evidence, even when unoontradicted, since there is the presumption of innocence, which can only be overcome by the verdict of a jury.” S. v. Riley, 113 N.C. 648, 18 S.E. 168. See also S. v. Blue, 219 N.C. 612, 14 S.E. 2d 635, and cases cited. And this has been held to be the correct doctrine, though guilt may be inferred from the defendant’s own testimony as in S. v. Green, 134 N.C. 658, 46 S.E. 761.

For error thus appearing there must be a

New trial.

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

Winbokne, C. J.

Among the assignments of error presented by defendant is that based: upon exception to the closing instruction given by the court to the jury in this language: “The court further in[689]*689structs you that if you find the facts to be as all of this evidence tends to show and you so find those facts beyond a reasonable doubt, then it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty as charged.”

Decisions of this Court indicate that the exception is well taken. See S. v. Godwin, 227 N.C. 449, 42 S.E. 2d 617, where as here there is no admission or presumption calling for explanation or reply on the part of defendant. There the court said that the peremptory character of the instruction, almost identical with the above, would seem to be in excess of approved practice. And it is there declared that it is only in rare instances that a verdict may be directed for the State in a criminal prosecution.

Moreover, “the plea of not guilty disputes the credibility of the evidence, even when unoontradicted, since there is the presumption of innocence, which can only be overcome by the verdict of a jury.” S. v. Riley, 113 N.C. 648, 18 S.E. 168. See also S. v. Blue, 219 N.C. 612, 14 S.E. 2d 635, and cases cited. And this has been held to be the correct doctrine, though guilt may be inferred from the defendant’s own testimony as in S. v. Green, 134 N.C. 658, 46 S.E. 761.

For error thus appearing there must be a

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 S.E.2d 891, 251 N.C. 686, 1960 N.C. LEXIS 536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-lackey-nc-1960.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack