State v. Williams

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Williams

178 S.E.2d 41, 10 N.C. App. 183, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1229

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 16, 1970

DocketNo. 703SC623

StatusPublished

This text of 178 S.E.2d 41 (State v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Williams, 178 S.E.2d 41, 10 N.C. App. 183, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1229 (N.C. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

PARKER, Judge.

After a voir dire hearing, the trial court allowed in evidence testimony of a deputy sheriff concerning extrajudicial confessions which each defendant had made while in the presence of the others. In its charge the court instructed the jury that if they should find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made, they were “not concerned with whether it was freely and voluntarily made, because the court has ruled it was freely and voluntarily made.” In this instruction the court committed error.

“It is error for the judge to instruct the jury that he has ruled or determined that the statements, if any, attributed to defendant, were made by defendant freely and voluntarily.” State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 153 S.E. 2d 63. For error in the charge, defendants are awarded a

New trial.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.

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

PARKER, Judge.

After a voir dire hearing, the trial court allowed in evidence testimony of a deputy sheriff concerning extrajudicial confessions which each defendant had made while in the presence of the others. In its charge the court instructed the jury that if they should find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the confession was made, they were “not concerned with whether it was freely and voluntarily made, because the court has ruled it was freely and voluntarily made.” In this instruction the court committed error.

“It is error for the judge to instruct the jury that he has ruled or determined that the statements, if any, attributed to defendant, were made by defendant freely and voluntarily.” State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 153 S.E. 2d 63. For error in the charge, defendants are awarded a

New trial.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Graham concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 S.E.2d 41, 10 N.C. App. 183, 1970 N.C. App. LEXIS 1229, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-williams-ncctapp-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack