{ "id": 8549895, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANIEL MOORE BOND", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bond", "decision_date": "1973-12-12", "docket_number": "No. 736SC808", "first_page": "128", "last_page": "134", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "20 N.C. App. 128" } ], "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": "199 S.E. 2d 695", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 666", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555448 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0666-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 371", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547651 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0136-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 536", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 256", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548592 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0256-01" ] }, { "cite": "97 S.E. 2d 451", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "246 N.C. 80", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624196 ], "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/246/0080-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 290", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "18 N.C. App. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547613 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/18/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "12 N.C. App. 538", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550935 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/12/0538-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 24", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575144 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0306-01" ] }, { "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": "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 494, "char_count": 8206, "ocr_confidence": 0.599, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20588516936701715 }, "sha256": "304d9e1bb7acae4ecd6a6f916f257c21c6f60d0c0afcb421d62e930ecf1462fb", "simhash": "1:4fad1dee55e62497", "word_count": 1503 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Morris concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANIEL MOORE BOND" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his assignment of error number 4, defendant contends the trial judge expressed an opinion to the jury in violation of G.S. 1-180 by extensively questioning defendant and his witnesses. The assignment is sustained.\nThe record reveals that in the initial presentation of its case, the State introduced three witnesses. On the initial presentation, the trial judge did not ask two of the witnesses any questions and asked the third witness two questions. Defendant then presented nine witnesses in addition to himself, the first of his witnesses being Columbus (Lump) Williams. After the examination, cross-examination and redirect examination of Williams, the following occurred :\n\u201cThe Court: Was she open?\nAnswer by Witness : No, sir.\nThe Court : What did you stop by there for if the store was closed?\nAnswer by Witness: I seen a whole lot of cars up there so I went by there.\nThe Court : What business did you have there ?\nAnswer by Witness: I didn\u2019t have no business up there.\nTHE' COURT: When did you stop drinking?\nAnswer by Witness : That has been in 1971.\nThe Court : When were you convicted of driving under the influence?\nAnswer by Witness : April.\nThe Court: What year?\nAnswer by Witness : 1971.\u201d\nColumbus Williams was followed on the witness stand by William Heckstall and his cross-examination was interrupted by the trial judge as follows:\n\u201cThe Court: Mr. Heckstall, have you heard William Smallwood make a statement more than one time about whether or not he was at the scene of the death ?\nAnswer by Witness : I have not heard it but one time and that was when he came to my house.\nThe Court: You have not heard him say anything about it since then?\nAnswer by Witness Heckstall: No, not since that Sunday morning.\nThe Court: After the death?\nAnswer by Witness: Yes, after the death.\u201d\nWhile defendant was on the witness stand and following his direct examination, cross-examination, redirect examination and further cross-examination, the record discloses the following:\n\u201cExamination by the Court:\nQ. Are you all through? At the time you saw Stanley Bond could you tell that he had been in trouble?\nA. Well, not exactly, but he blowed real loud when he gets out of breath.\nQ. He blows real loud ordinarily?\nA. Sometimes.\nQ. Was he lying in the ditch?\nA. No, he was standing in the ditch.\nQ. And you wanted to go ahead and take him home? A. That is right.\nQ. And you had gotten in the car and sat down?\nA. Right.\nQ. How far away were these two men you said were James Frank Smallwood and Willie C. when you saw them?\nA. About half a car length.\nQ. You were already sitting in the car?\nA. I was standing there then waiting for Stanley to sit down.\nQ. Waiting on him?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did the car have glasses in it where you could roll them up and down?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did it have locks on the doors?\nA. It had some, but the door was not locked.\nQ. The glass on your side did have a glass in it, the window on your side, didn\u2019t it?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. And the door on the left side did have a lock in it?\nA. The left-hand side?\nQ. The driver\u2019s side?\nA. Had a lock?\nQ. Had a button to push down?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did you at any time call your wife that night and let her know where you were, did you?\nA. I don\u2019t have a phone.\nQ. You don\u2019t have one at your home?\nA. No, sir.\u201d\nFollowing the examination and cross-examination of defense witness Stanley Haywood Bond, the record sets forth the following:\n\u201cExamination by the Court :\nQ. Mr. Bond, you indicated in your testimony you were receiving a check from the government each month, is that correct?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. What is the check for?\nA. Well, during my tour in Yiet Nam like I stated earlier I got wounded in Viet Nam and so the check is for that.\nQ. Because you were wounded in service?\nA. Yes, sir. The check is for that.\nQ. For the injury in your heel?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. What percent of disability do you draw?\nA. Like you say 100% maybe.\nQ. Do you draw 100%?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Is the only disability you have in your heel?\nA. Well, no. While I was in the VA hospital I applied for more, well, disability.\nQ. Why?\nA. Why?\nQ. Yes.\nA. Because, first of all, I stutter sometime.\nQ. You stutter?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Did you stutter before you went into the army?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Do you have any card to show your disability that you draw?\nA. What type of card?\nQ. Anything in your pocketbook. Any type or piece of paper in your pocketbook that would show the type of disability that you are drawing?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. Do you have anything like that anywhere ?\nA. Somewhere? Some card or papers?\nQ. Yes.\nA. That would show the disability that I draw?\nQ. Yes.\nA. That is a broad statement, but let\u2019s see. Ah, oh, no sir, no sir.\nQ. Do you have a copy of your discharge?\nA. Papers?\nQ. Yes, sir.\nA. Yes, at home.\nQ. Do you know what I mean by 308 or 309 discharge?\nA. No, but you can explain it to me.\nQ. Are you not in fact drawing 100% disability for mental disability?\nA. Well, with a combination of the three, these can be compared as one, you know, to come together as one problem.\nQ. That is as clear as you can answer my question, is it not?\nA. Yes, sir.\nThe Court: All right.\u201d\nAfter defendant rested his case, the State offered several witnesses in rebuttal. Among those was Marie Smallwood and at the conclusion of her testimony the record discloses the following :\n\u201cCourt: \u2018All of these men were out there without their wives as far as you know, weren\u2019t they?\u2019 Answer by witness: T don\u2019t know, I was not there.\u2019 \u201d\nIt is well settled that in the trial of criminal actions, the court may ask a witness questions designed to obtain a proper understanding and clarification of the witness\u2019 testimony or to bring out some fact overlooked, but the court may not ask a defendant or a witness questions tending to impeach him or to cast doubt upon his credibility. State v. McEachern, 283 N.C. 57, 194 S.E. 2d 787 (1973); State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128 (1971); State v. Kirby, 273 N.C. 306, 160 S.E. 2d 24 (1968); State v. Lowery, 12 N.C. App. 538, 183 S.E. 2d 797 (1971); State v. Pinkham, 18 N.C. App. 130, 196 S.E. 2d 290 (1973). 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. Lynn, 246 N.C. 80, 97 S.E. 2d 451 (1957); State v. Battle, 18 N.C. App. 256, 196 S.E. 2d 536 (1973). See also State v. Sharp, 18 N.C. App. 136, 196 S.E. 2d 371 (1973) and State v. Hewitt, 19 N.C. App. 666, 199 S.E. 2d 695 (1973).\nWe hold that in the case at bar, the court\u2019s questions tended to impeach defendant and his witnesses or to cast doubt on their credibility, entitling defendant to a new trial. We find it unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of error argued in defendant\u2019s brief.\nNew trial.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Raymond W. Dew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.", "Jones, Jones & Jones by L. Herbin, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DANIEL MOORE BOND\nNo. 736SC808\n(Filed 12 December 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 court\u2019s questioning of defense witnesses \u2014 expression of opinion\nThe trial court expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of G.S. 1-180 by asking defendant and his witnesses questions which tended to impeach them and to cast doubt on their credibility.\nOn certiorari to review judgment of Perry Martin, Judge, entered at the 8 May 1972 Session of Bertie Superior Court.\nBy indictments, proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) the murder of William C. Bond and (2) assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries on James Frank Smallwood. Both offenses were alleged to have occurred on 15 August 1971. When the cases were called for trial, the solicitor announced that with respect to the murder charge the State would seek no greater verdict than murder in the second-degree. Defendant pleaded not guilty. A jury returned verdicts finding defendant not guilty on the assault charge but guilty of second-degree murder. From judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 18 nor more than 20 years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Raymond W. Dew, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJones, Jones & Jones by L. Herbin, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0128-01", "first_page_order": 156, "last_page_order": 162 }