{
  "id": 8556632,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE CRANE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crane",
  "decision_date": "1971-07-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7130SC446",
  "first_page": "721",
  "last_page": "723",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 721"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 253,
    "char_count": 4200,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.58,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.621017481241883e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49061277317712343
    },
    "sha256": "b1d340511d1fa5e458f5964f2c82fbd2f196162c9270002f36de4813fe82448b",
    "simhash": "1:aef5a447e8269bb9",
    "word_count": 743
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE CRANE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nAfter the jury had been deliberating for some time, they returned to the courtroom. The foreman told the court that the jury wanted to know if the sheriff had said he had a signed statement of the defendant, or just the oral word of the defendant. The court, in instructing the jury again to take their own recollection of the evidence, said:\n\u201cWell, members' of the jury, it is in evidence as to the type of statement allegedly made to Sheriff Holcombe. I\u2019ll just have to tell you to take your own recollection of what was said or what was not said. (It would be of very little consequence, from a legal standpoint, it might make a difference to you, one way or the other, as to whether or not the statement was or was not made in writing.) As I say, it is in evidence; some of you may have heard it, and some of you may not have, but I cannot go any further than to say that it is in evidence, and (that whether or not it was or was not a written statement, insofar as its legal sufficiency is concerned, is of no consequence. If you find that there was a statement made, beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you find that you believe what was in the statement, it will be up to you to believe; if you fail to find that such a statement was made, it will be a question of whether it was made or not, not a question of whether it was in writing or not. Do you understand that?)\nThe Foreman: They just wanted to know if Crane had signed the statement to the Sheriff; they didn\u2019t understand what the sheriff said to that.\nThe Court: The evidence was testified to by the Sheriff, one way or the other, so you\u2019ll have to take your best recollection of it.\nThe Foreman : All right, sir.\u201d\nDefendant excepted to those portions in parentheses and these exceptions, together with an exception to the failure of the court to recapitulate the testimony of the sheriff, support defendant\u2019s two assignments of error on appeal.\nDefendant contends that the trial judge violated the provisions of G.S. 1-180 prohibiting the judge from giving \u201can opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven.\u201d We fail to see how the remarks of the court could be construed as expressing an opinion. The jury obviously was satisfied that a statement was made by the defendant to the sheriff. The foreman said they didn\u2019t understand what the sheriff said as to whether it was a signed statement. The court simply told them if they believed a statement was made, and if they believed what was in it, it would make no difference whether it was in writing.\nDefendant also asserts that the court committed reversible error in failing to recapitulate the evidence of the sheriff. Th\u00e9 general rule is that it is discretionary with the court to grant or refuse the jury\u2019s request for restatement of the evidence. 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law, \u00a7 1377. The evidence requested by the jury here was not a vital portion of the testimony. This was explained to the jury clearly and fully. We find no abuse of discretion and no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Conely for the State.",
      "Orville D. Coward and Thomas W. Jones for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMIE CRANE\nNo. 7130SC446\n(Filed 14 July 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 114\u2014 instructions \u2014 expression of opinion \u2014 request by jury for additional information\nIn replying to the jury\u2019s question as to whether defendant\u2019s statement to the sheriff was oral or written, the trial court\u2019s instruction that, if the jury believed that such a statement was made, it would make no difference whether or not the statement was in writing, did not constitute an expression of opinion. G.S. 1-180.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 instructions \u2014 request for restatement of the evidence\nIt is discretionary with the court to grant or refuse the jury\u2019s request for restatement of the evidence.\nAppeal from Grist, Judge, 15 February 1971 Regular Session of Superior Court of Jackson County.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny. He entered a plea of not guilty, was found guilty on both counts, and appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict.\nAttorney General Morgan by Staff Attorney Conely for the State.\nOrville D. Coward and Thomas W. Jones for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0721-01",
  "first_page_order": 745,
  "last_page_order": 747
}