{ "id": 8551092, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUTHER TALMADGE MEDLIN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Medlin", "decision_date": "1972-08-02", "docket_number": "No. 7214SC462", "first_page": "434", "last_page": "437", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "15 N.C. App. 434" } ], "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": [ { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 128", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 458", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560650 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0458-01" ] }, { "cite": "89 N.C. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8683388 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/89/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 35", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273104 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 621", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N.C. 690", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616362 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0690-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 249", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628274 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621191 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 530", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608861 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628242 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 311", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622488 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0311-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 119", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565328 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 891", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602171 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0251-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 447, "char_count": 7249, "ocr_confidence": 0.517, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.565971613381455e-07, "percentile": 0.677815000025098 }, "sha256": "4261943de41ca68d485aa4db52a9a8fae4c1a86a8343f941a709c84d717cf75d", "simhash": "1:c74ef753cea38197", "word_count": 1227 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUTHER TALMADGE MEDLIN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe warrant in this case was sufficient to charge defendant with committing the offense of driving a vehicle upon the public highways within this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of G.S. 20-138, and to charge commission of a second such offense so as to make defendant punishable under the provisions of G.S. 20-179 (a) (2). The verdict, however, neither alludes to the warrant nor uses language to show a conviction of the offense charged therein. No finding was made that defendant drove an automobile on a public highway, or as to what defendant was under the influence of when he drove, or as to commission of any second offense. The verdict rendered may be entirely consistent with the guilt of defendant, but it is not inconsistent with his innocence. Had the verdict been simply \u201cguilty,\u201d or \u201cguilty as charged,\u201d it would have been sufficient to support the judgment, \u201cbut when the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, as in the instant case, it is essential that the spelling be correct.\u201d State v. Lassiter, 208 N.C. 251, 179 S.E. 891. This essential for a valid verdict in a criminal case has been pointed out by our Supreme Court many times. State v. Ingram, 271 N.C. 538, 157 S.E. 2d 119; State v. Brown, 248 N.C. 311, 103 S.E. 2d 341; State v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 52 S.E. 2d 9; State v. Allen, 224 N.C. 530, 31 S.E. 2d 530; State v. Cannon, 218 N.C. 466, 11 S.E. 2d 301; State v. Lassiter, supra; State v. Barbee, 197 N.C. 248, 148 S.E. 249; State v. Shew, 194 N.C. 690, 140 S.E. 621; State v. Parker, 152 N.C. 790, 67 S.E. 35; State v. Whitaker, 89 N.C. 472.\nIn the case last cited, Ashe, J., speaking for the Court, said (p. 474) :\n\u201cTo avoid embarrassment in cases like this, it would be well to follow the suggestion of Mr. Bishop, \u2018that in every case of a verdict rendered, the judge or prosecuting officer, or both, should look after its form and its substance, so far as to prevent a doubtful or insufficient finding from passing into the records of the court, to create embarrassment afterwards, and perhaps the necessity of a new trial.\u2019 1 Bish. Cr. Pro., sec. 831.\u201d\nTrial judges would be well advised to exercise utmost care in accepting verdicts in order to assure that the verdict rendered accurately reflects the jury\u2019s findings as to defendant\u2019s guilt or innocence of the exact charge or charges for which he is being tried. This can best be accomplished if the jury is requested to respond with a simple answer of \u201cguilty,\u201d or \u201cnot guilty\u201d to specifically formulated issues which contain clear and accurate statements of the charge or charges for which defendant is being tried.\nApart from ambiguity in the verdict, defendant is entitled to a new trial in the present case. On several occasions while defendant\u2019s counsel was cross-examining the State\u2019s witnesses, the trial judge either sustained objections by the solicitor or interposed his own objections to block legitimate lines of cross-examination. In addition, after the State\u2019s witness had completed his testimony as to results of the breathalyzer test, the trial judge asked questions of the witness to bring out the fact that the breathalyzer test had been approved for use in this State since 1965 and to bring before the jury that the witness had given the test to persons suspected of driving under the influence of intoxicants for between 900 and 1000 times. By these actions the trial judge, temporarily at least, abandoned his role as an impartial jurist and assumed the role of the prosecutor. In so doing he violated the provisions of G.S. 1-180. While any one of these incidents standing alone, even though erroneous, might not be regarded as prejudicial, when all of them are viewed in the light of their cumulative effect upon the jury, we hold that the cold neutrality of the law was breached to the prejudice of this defendant. State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128.\nFor the reasons set forth above, defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudges Britt and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorneys General William, W. Melvin and William B. Ray for the State.", "Arthur Vann for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LUTHER TALMADGE MEDLIN\nNo. 7214SC462\n(Filed 2 August 1972)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 130; Criminal Law \u00a7 124\u2014 sufficiency of verdict to support judgment\nThe jury\u2019s verdict of \u201cguilty of driving automobile under the influence\u201d was insufficient to support the judgment against defendant in a prosecution for driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor, second offense, because the verdict neither alluded to the warrant nor used language to show a conviction of the offense charged therein.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 124\u2014 verdict \u2014 failure to refer to charge\nThe jury should be requested to respond with a simple answer of guilty or not guilty to specifically formulated issues which contain clear and accurate statements of the charge or charges for which defendant is being tried; if the jury undertakes to spell out its verdict without specific reference to the charge, however, it is essential that the spelling be correct.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 objections and questions by trial court \u2014 expression of opinion\nThe trial judge committed prejudicial error in violation of G.S. 1-180 when he sustained objections during cross-examination of State\u2019s witnesses and interposed his own objections to block legitimate lines of cross-examination and when he questioned the State\u2019s witness with respect to the number of years the breathalyzer test had been in use and the number of times the witness had administered it.\nAppeal by defendant from Cooper, Judge, 7 February 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Durham County.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with the offense of unlawfully and willfully operating a motor vehicle on 28 November 1971 on a public highway in Durham County, N. C., \u201cwhile under the influence of intoxicating liquor this being his second offense as the defendant was convicted of a similar offense in the Superior Court Division of General Court of Durham County on January 27, 1969.\u201d After plea of not guilty and trial and conviction in the district court, defendant appealed to the superior court, where he again pleaded not guilty and was tried de novo.\nThe record shows that the jury returned into open court with their verdict and that the following occurred:\nThe Court: \u201cHow do you find the defendant Luther Talmadge Medlin on the charge of driving under the influence?\u201d\nForeman: \u201cWe the jury find the defendant guilty of driving automobile under the influence.\u201d\nThe record shows that judgment was entered as follows:\n\u201cIn open court, the defendant appeared for trial upon the charge or charges of Driving Under the Influence, 2nd Offense and thereupon entered a plea of not guilty\nHaving Been Found Guilty of the offense of Driving Under the Influence, 2nd Offense which is a violation of _and of the grade of misdemeanor\nIt is Adjudged that the defendant be imprisoned for the term of thirty (30) days in the county jail of Durham County and assigned to work under the supervision of the State Department of Correction.\u201d\nFrom this judgment, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorneys General William, W. Melvin and William B. Ray for the State.\nArthur Vann for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0434-01", "first_page_order": 458, "last_page_order": 461 }