{
  "id": 8555448,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARVIN HEWITT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hewitt",
  "decision_date": "1973-10-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 7315SC681",
  "first_page": "666",
  "last_page": "669",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 666"
    }
  ],
  "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": "34 A.L.R. 3d 1313",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 A.L.R. 2d 166",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565516
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560650
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 24",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547678
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 787",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 57",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557660
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0057-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 S.E., 855",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 378",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621871
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0521-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 S.E. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N.C. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625247
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0206-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 5269,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.212020549794038e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7766292552191266
    },
    "sha256": "8f0ccafc939681ef87b850626b1a8c2652cd11320dfbfb8860d8d03cc43ebdd2",
    "simhash": "1:4555384b8cfd24b6",
    "word_count": 923
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARVIN HEWITT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nG.S. 1-180 provides: \u201cNo judge, in giving a charge to the petit jury in a criminal action, shall give an opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven, that being the true office and province of the jury, . . .\u201d Although the statute refers to the charge, it has always been construed to include the expression of any opinion, or even an intimation by the judge, at any time during the trial which prejudices either party. State v. Oakley, 210 N.C. 206, 186 S.E. 244 (1936).\nIn State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E. 2d 378 (1946), the court said:\n\u201c. . . It can make no difference in what way or when the opinion of the judge is conveyed to the jury, whether directly or indirectly, or by the general tone and tenor of the trial. The statute forbids an intimation of his opinion in any form whatever, .it being the intent of the law to insure to each and every litigant a fair and impartial trial before the j ury. \u2018Every suitor is entitled by the law to have his cause considered with the \u201ccold neutrality of the impartial judge\u201d and the equally unbiased mind of a properly instructed jury.\u2019 Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C., p. 192, 56 S.E., 855.\u201d\nIn the course of the State\u2019s case, the trial judge interrupted to ask a witness, \u201cDo you know what he did with the stuff?\u201d It is error for the judge to make any statement which goes beyond the stage of eliciting or clarifying the witness\u2019s testimony and which is subject to the interpretation by the jury that the judge believes the defendant to be guilty. State v. McEachern, 283 N.C. 57, 194 S.E. 2d 787 (1973). (\u201cYou were in the car when you were raped?\u201d); State v. Ealy, 7 N.C. App. 42, 171 S.E. 2d 24 (1969). (Instruction to jury to answer the question, \u201cAt the time of the stabbing that killed the deceased, Jesse Osborne, was the defendant at a place where she had the right to be?\u201d)\nIt is also error for the judge to make any remarks which tend to belittle or humiliate defendant\u2019s cause or his counsel before the jury. State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128 (1971); State v. Lynch, 279 N.C. 1, 181 S.E. 2d 561 (1971). See, Annotation, Remarks or Acts of Trial Judge Criticizing, Rebuking, or Punishing Defense Counsel in Criminal Case, as Requiring New Trial or Reversal, 62 A.L.R. 2d 166 (1958). See, Annotation, Prejudicial Effect of Trial Judge\u2019s Remarks, During Criminal Trial, Disparaging Accused, 34 A.L.R. 3d 1313 (1970). During the cross examination of one of the State\u2019s witnesses, Mr. Brad Wilson, the following took place:\n\u201cQ. And at that time did you take the witness stand and testify?\nA. No sir.\nThe Court: Why would he on a plea of guilty?\nWhy would he take the witness stand on a plea of guilty?\u201d\nLater in the same cross examination the following occurred:\n\u201cQ. You thought if you could involve someone else in this matter you thought that would help you?\nA. No sir.\nQ. You don\u2019t think it would help you?\nA. No sir.\nThe Court: What difference does that make?\u201d\nFinally, at the conclusion of the evidence the following exchange took place:\n\u201cThe Court: Well it\u2019s time to get the cigarette smoked I reckon.\nMr. Noell: Your Honor, may I make one motion pertaining to the Charge of the Court before the Court charges?\nThe Court: Is that a motion or request for instructions?\nMr. Noell : It is a request for instructions.\nThe Court: Why don\u2019t you write them out so I can rule on them and put it in the file so if you don\u2019t like my ruling you will have something to appeal from? .\nMr. Noell : I thought I\u2019d put it in the record.\nThe Court: If you think I am going to listen to instructions while you argue to the jury, you are crazy.\u201d\nWhen all these incidents, particularly the last one, are viewed in light of their cumulative effect upon the jury, we are constrained to hold that the cold neutrality of the law was breached to the prejudice of the defendant. We feel certain the learned trial judge did not intend to prejudice the defense or in any manner belittle counsel; but, nevertheless, when these inadvert-ences occur, they must be corrected, as they could have conveyed to the jury the impression of judicial leaning. This, of course, violates G.S. 1-180 and requires a new trial. Having ordered a new trial, we need not consider defendant\u2019s other assignments of error as they may not recur.\nNew trial.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan for the State.",
      "Norman E. Williams; Thomas F. Loflin III; and Thomas B. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MARVIN HEWITT\nNo. 7315SC681\n(Filed 24 October 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 questioning witnesses \u2014 belittling counsel \u2014 expression of opinion by court\nIn a prosecution for receiving stolen property knowing said goods to.be stolen, the trial court committed prejudicial error in questioning the State\u2019s witnesses and in belittling counsel upon his request for instructions.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, Judge, 19 March 1973 Session of Orange County Superior Court.\nThe defendant was indicted by the Orange County Grand Jury for feloniously receiving stolen property knowing said goods to be stolen. From a verdict of guilty and a judgment sentencing the defendant to ten years imprisonment, th\u00bf defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General George W. Boylan for the State.\nNorman E. Williams; Thomas F. Loflin III; and Thomas B. Anderson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0666-01",
  "first_page_order": 690,
  "last_page_order": 693
}