{ "id": 8548592, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE RUFUS BATTLE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Battle", "decision_date": "1973-05-23", "docket_number": "No. 737SC217", "first_page": "256", "last_page": "259", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "18 N.C. App. 256" } ], "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": "185 S.E. 2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571880 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0306-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 220", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564078 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0220-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 583", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 65", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561810 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0065-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S.E. 2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624196 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 313", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625305 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0313-01" ] }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 402, "char_count": 6251, "ocr_confidence": 0.552, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.36693278256763234 }, "sha256": "162a2009d8bfbb613a94c142ecb33ea3f8e9e3dd5f5e8a3d752849596e817356", "simhash": "1:e0afd26bf44f88dc", "word_count": 1108 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE RUFUS BATTLE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe will discuss only so much of the evidence as is thought to be necessary to indicate why there must be a new trial.\nEstill, the victim, had testified that, during the robbery, the man who robbed him stated that he had four children and that when he talked with defendant at the police station defendant told him he had four children. Defendant\u2019s wife testified, among other things, that she and defendant had only two children; after working all day, defendant returned to their Washington residence about 6:30 p.m., on 25 May 1972, ate dinner, watched television and retired for the night about 10:30 p.m.; defendant did not leave Washington during the month of May and that they came to Rocky Mount in June, leaving their two children in Washington with the witness\u2019s mother. After cross-examination by the solicitor, the court undertook to examine the witness as follows.\n\u201cBy the Court:\nQ. What type of work do you do in Washington?\nA. I was working for the Telephone Company.\nQ. About when did you quit there?\nA. Last year.\nQ. How old are you?\nA. Twenty-four.\nQ. You say the man\u2019s name your husband worked for was what?\nA. He worked for Daniels Trash Company.\nQ. Daniels Trash Company?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Have you ever seen Mr. Daniels?\nA. No.\nQ. You don\u2019t know if he is a white man or a black man, or a red man, or a yellow man, do you?\nA. My husband said he was black.-\nQ. Does your husband always bring his pay check home to you?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Do you keep those records for him?\nA. Yes.\nQ. Do you have any records showing when he got his last check in Washington, D. C.?\nA. I don\u2019t have it with me but it was in June.\nQ. Where would you have it?\nA. All our furniture and all that stuff is still in Washington.\nQ. You left your furniture, your records and your children and everything in Washington?\nA. Yes. We just came for a visit.\nQ. You are just visiting\u25a0 down here now?\nA. Yes.\nQ. But your husband is working here now?\nA. Well, he took a job because he got into this trouble. It was only a visit and we were going back to Washington.\nQ. Do you have a picture of your children- or anything like that?\nA. I have one of my daughter. I have a picture of my daughter.\nQ. But not all of your children together?\nA. I have only two.\nQ. You don\u2019t have a picture of them together?\nA. No.\nQ. Do you know whether or not your husband drew unemployment at any time after he left Washington?\nA. No, he didn\u2019t.\nQ. He did not?\nA. No.\nBy the Court: All right, Thank you.\u201d\nThe sound rule that no judge at any time is permitted to cast doubt upon the testimony of a witness is firmly fixed in this jurisdiction. The judge must exercise great care to see that nothing he does or says during the trial can be understood by the jury as an expression of an opinion on the facts or conveys an impression of judicial leaning. State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128; State v. Kimrey, 236 N.C. 313, 72 S.E. 2d 677; State v. Lynn, 246 N.C. 80, 97 S.E. 2d 451. We hold that the court\u2019s participation in the examination of the witness constitutes prejudicial error.\nIn other assignments of error defendant contends that the court committed error in the manner in which he stated the contentions of the parties. We hold that the court, having elected to give the contentions of the parties, overemphasized those of the State to the prejudice of the defendant.\nDefendant brings forward assignments of error attacking the admission, over timely objection, of testimony by the victim identifying defendant as the person who committed the robbery. Although a voir dire was conducted, the court\u2019s findings were inconclusive as to the essential questions presented. At the next trial, if proper and timely objection is made, the court will determine the admissibility of the evidence in the manner required and as set out in numerous decisions of the Supreme Court. See State v. Accor and State v. Moore, 277 N.C. 65, 175 S.E. 2d 583; State v. Knight, 282 N.C. 220, 192 S.E. 2d 283; State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844.\nNew trial.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Robert G. Webb, Assistant Attorney General for the State.", "Dill, Fountain & Hoyle by William S. Hoyle for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE RUFUS BATTLE\nNo. 737SC217\n(Filed 23 May 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 questioning of witness by court \u2014 prejudicial expression of opinion\nLengthy questioning by the court of defendant\u2019s wife as to the activities of defendant during the time of the alleged robbery, defendant\u2019s employment in Washington, D. C., the number of children of defendant and the witness, the witness\u2019s possession of a photograph of the children, the circumstances surrounding the couple\u2019s presence in Rocky Mount where the crime was allegedly committed and defendant\u2019s employment in Rocky Mount violated the rule that no judge is at any time permitted to cast doubt upon the testimony of a witness.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113\u2014 jury instruction \u2014 overemphasis on State\u2019s contentions\nThe trial court in an armed robbery case, having elected to give the contentions of the parties, overemphasized those of the State to the prejudice of the defendant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014 identification of defendant \u2014 insufficiency of findings on voir dire\nAlthough the court conducted a voir dire upon defendant\u2019s timely objection to testimony by the victim of an armed robbery identifying defendant as the perpetrator of the crime, the court\u2019s findings were inconclusive as to the essential questions presented.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Perry), Judge, 2 October 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Nash County.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that shortly after 9:00 p.m., on 25 May 1972, defendant, armed with a pistol, robbed one Estill in a motel room at Rocky Mount. Defendant offered evidence tending to show that he was in his residence in Washington, D. C., at the time of the robbery; that on 25 May 1972, he worked in the vicinity of Washington, D. C., for his regular employer, Herman Daniels, who owned Daniels\u2019 Trash Company. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of armed robbery and judgment was entered imposing a prison sentence. Defendant was represented at trial and on appeal by court appointed counsel.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Robert G. Webb, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nDill, Fountain & Hoyle by William S. Hoyle for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0256-01", "first_page_order": 280, "last_page_order": 283 }