{ "id": 8553466, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER HOUSE, JR. and EUGENE ROGERS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. House", "decision_date": "1972-12-20", "docket_number": "No. 728SC837", "first_page": "97", "last_page": "99", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "17 N.C. App. 97" } ], "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": "279 N.C. 396", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568800, 8568902, 8568713, 8568686, 8568859, 8568764 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0396-04", "/nc/279/0396-06", "/nc/279/0396-02", "/nc/279/0396-01", "/nc/279/0396-05", "/nc/279/0396-03" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 754", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "11 N.C. App. 465", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555719 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/11/0465-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12166109 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 95", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572379 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0239-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S.E. 2d 6", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "265 N.C. 277", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575036 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/265/0277-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 600", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565985 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0600-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 362, "char_count": 4985, "ocr_confidence": 0.572, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1420408488207926e-07, "percentile": 0.5790559604054136 }, "sha256": "e37d752cc36874cf2f6e9b8a27f1c8eda98c433200932e82878e8d3ee8d67bc9", "simhash": "1:3dd3686a643a3098", "word_count": 836 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER HOUSE, JR. and EUGENE ROGERS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "GRAHAM, Judge.\nThe State relied principally upon testimony of two accomplices who pleaded guilty to charges arising out of the robbery and then testified against defendants. The solicitor asked one of these witnesses on direct examination: \u201c . . . [Y]ou say the purpose of yo'u all going there the two or three times was to rob Mr. Morris Mobley, is that right?\u201d Defendants\u2019 objections were overruled and the witness answered, \u201cYes sir.\u201d Defendants assert on appeal that permitting this single leading question constitutes prejudicial error sufficient to require a new trial. We disagree. \u201cThe allowance of leading questions is a matter entirely within the discretion of the trial judge, and his rulings will not be reviewed on appeal, at least in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.\u201d Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 31 at 59; State v. Staten, 271 N.C. 600, 157 S.E. 2d 225; State v. Painter, 265 N.C. 277, 144 S.E. 2d 6. We find no abuse of discretion here; moreover, defendants have not been harmed because a more properly phrased question would undoubtedly have brought forth the same information. See State v. Johnson, 272 N.C. 239, 158 S.E. 2d 95.\nDefendant House assigns as error the form of the court\u2019s instruction concerning his failure to testify. The court instructed :\n\u201cHe is presumed to be innocent and in this connection I instruct you that the Defendant House chose not to testify in this case, and the law gives him this privilege. The same law also assures him that his decision not to testify will not be used against him. Therefore, you must be very careful not to allow his silence to influence your decision in any way.\u201d\nIt is noted that the instruction given was taken almost verbatim from the pattern jury instructions suggested by the Conference of Superior Court Judges. While an instruction more nearly in the language of G.S. 8-54 is preferred, State v. McNeill, 229 N.C. 377, 49 S.E. 2d 733, and State v. Powell, 11 N.C. App. 465, 181 S.E. 2d 754, cert. denied, 279 N.C. 396, we do not view the instructions given as prejudicial and overrule this assignment of error.\nFinally, both defendants contend that prejudicial error arises from a colloquy that occurred when the jury returned to the courtroom after deliberating about forty minutes and asked the trial judge if they could find one defendant guilty or not guilty and the other one undecided. The judge properly instructed them that they could find one defendant guilty and one not guilty. When asked specifically if one could be found \u201cundecided,\u201d the judge replied: \u201cUndecided now but I want you to stay in there and work on that.\u201d\nThere is no indication in the record that the jury was deadlocked over a verdict as to either defendant at the time they requested the additional instructions. On the contrary, it appears they simply wanted the court to clarify the alternative verdicts available to them. When they first returned to the courtroom, one of the jurors informed the court that, \u201c ... we would like to know some of the alternatives as far as passing judgment. ...\u201d The court\u2019s response was in no way coercive and perhaps it was as appropriate under the circumstances as any that could have been made. We hold that no prejudice arose out of the colloquy assigned as error.\nA review of the entire record indicates that both defendants received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "GRAHAM, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., for the State.", "Harvey W. Marcus for defendant appellant Walter House, Jr.", "Perry, Perry and Perry by Dan E. Perry for defendant appellant Eugene Rogers." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER HOUSE, JR. and EUGENE ROGERS\nNo. 728SC837\n(Filed 20 December 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 87 \u2014 leading question \u2014 no prejudicial error\nA single leading question by the solicitor put to an accomplice who was testifying against defendants did not constitute prejudicial error sufficient to require a new trial.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 116 \u2014 instruction on failure of defendant to testify\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction on defendant\u2019s failure to take the stand that the jury must be very careful not to allow defendant\u2019s silence to influence their verdict in any way was not prejudicial, though an instruction more nearly in the language of G.S. 8-54 would be preferred.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 122\u2014 verdict of undecided \u2014 request for further instructions\u2014 no error\nNo prejudice arose out of the exchange between judge and jury when, upon a jury question as to whether one defendant could be found \u201cundecided,\u201d the judge suggested that the jury go back and work on that verdict.\nAppeal by defendants from Cowper, Judge, 31 July 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Lenoir County.\nDefendants were tried and convicted under separate bills of indictment, proper in form, charging them with the armed robbery of Morris Mobley. They appeal from judgments of imprisonment for terms of twenty years.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., for the State.\nHarvey W. Marcus for defendant appellant Walter House, Jr.\nPerry, Perry and Perry by Dan E. Perry for defendant appellant Eugene Rogers." }, "file_name": "0097-01", "first_page_order": 121, "last_page_order": 123 }