{ "id": 8555110, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL JOHNSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1974-02-20", "docket_number": "No. 738SC678", "first_page": "699", "last_page": "702", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "20 N.C. App. 699" } ], "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": "201 S.E. 2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 N.C. App. 223", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551257 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/20/0223-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 426", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572320 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0426-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 398", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560845 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0398-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659322 ], "year": 1907, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 433", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N.C. 787", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272407 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0787-01" ] }, { "cite": "133 S.E. 190", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N.C. 20", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615758 ], "year": 1926, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0020-01" ] }, { "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" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 448, "char_count": 6052, "ocr_confidence": 0.603, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08, "percentile": 0.3668787253619806 }, "sha256": "d88e2ce40304d44209d4272e380bd9eb49da68b08340555caf5a6334190fbc5f", "simhash": "1:fceb1dba683f07db", "word_count": 1028 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL JOHNSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant maintains that the trial court committed error by ridiculing and casting aspersions on the testimony of a. witness for the defendant. The specific remarks of the court complained of involve comments made by the trial judge during the course of the testimony of Lewis Price, a student at Wayne Community College. The record discloses the following colloquy:\n(Court: Mr. Price, you have been asked questions about great works of literature; can you name three great works of literature?\nA. My three favorites I can name are Dostoevski and his Crime and Punishment, and I can name Dickens and Tale of Two Cities, and I guess my other favorite would be Steinbeck and The Grapes of Wrath.\nCourt: I assume many years ago you read Paradise Lost?\nA. I\u2019m not versed in that.\nCourt: You haven\u2019t?\nA. I\u2019ve read excerpts here and there.\nCourt : You did go to high school?\nException 84\nA. Yes, sir.)\n(Court: Where on earth did you go to?\nA. To a very good high school in Pittsburgh.\nCourt: Where?\nA. In the suburbs of Pittsburgh.\nException 85\nCourt: You don\u2019t know who wrote Paradise Lost?\nA. Yes, sir, Milton.)\n(Court: Have you ever read Pilgram\u2019s Progress?\nA. No, sir, I have read excerpts as well. I have read other works of contemporary literature that I compare more favorably and that I think are more important to myself.\nCourt: You say you read something more important than Pilgrim\u2019s Progress and Paradise Lost?\nA. Since Paradise Lost, a lot of\u2014\nCourt: You all get an objection to anything that I ask. He really doesn\u2019t know anything and he thinks that he does. Do you know what century Henry Thoreau lived?\nException 86\nA. Yes, sir, he lived in the, a time of, what is his philosophy? Henry Thoreau lived in the early Nineteenth Century, and Thoreau wrote Walden, and Thoreau lived in the hills of New England. He grew beans and he talked about the good, simple life, sir.)\nIt is not only the right but the duty of the trial judge to control the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128 (1971); State v. Mansell, 192 N.C. 20, 133 S.E. 190 (1926) ; and \u201c[i]t has been the immemorial custom for the trial judge to examine wit-nsses who are tendered by either side whenever he sees fit to do so ...\u201d , State v. Home, 171 N.C. 787, 88 S.E. 433 (1916) ; however, \u201c [h] e should at all times be on the alert, lest, in an unguarded moment, something be incautiously said or done to shake the wavering balance which, as a minister of justice, he is supposed, figuratively speaking, to hold in his hands. Every suitor is entitled by the law to have his cause considered with the \u2018cold neutrality of the impartial judge\u2019 and the equally unbiased mind of a properly instructed jury. This right can neither be denied nor abridged.\u201d Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C. 184, 56 S.E. 855 (1907).\nWhether there has been a breach of the \u201ccold neutrality of the impartial judge\u201d is determined by the probable effect on the jury of the improper comments and not the motive of the court in making such statements. State v. Lea, 259 N.C. 398, 130 S.E. 2d 688 (1963). \u201cJurors respect the Judge and are easily influenced by suggestions, whether intentional or otherwise, emanating from the bench.\u201d State v. Holden, 280 N.C. 426, 185 S.E. 2d 889 (1972). Regardless of the motive or intent of the trial judge in making his comments in the instant case, these remarks tend to ridicule and belittle the witness of defendant, impair his credibility, and prejudice defendant\u2019s case. State v. Frazier, supra. For error in making such remarks the defendant must be awarded a new trial.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error to the trial judge\u2019s denial of his motion to quash the warrant presents the question of the constitutionality of G.S. 14-190.1. On the authority of State v. Bryant and State v. Floyd, 20 N.C. App. 223, 201 S.E. 2d 211 (Filed 19 December 1973) holding G.S. 14-190.1 to be constitutional, this assignment of error is overruled. Furthermore, we hold there was sufficient, competent evidence to require the submission of this case to the jury on the charge set out in the warrant.\nWe do not discuss defendant\u2019s other assignments of error since they are not likely to occur on a new trial.\nFor the reasons stated above, the defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General John R. B. Matthis for the State.", "Smith, Carrington, Patterson, Foll\u00edn & Curtis by Michael K. Curtis and J. David James for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL JOHNSON\nNo. 738SC678\n(Filed 20 February 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 belittling witness \u2014 expression of opinion by court\nIn a prosecution for disseminating obscenity in a public place the trial court committed prejudicial error in ridiculing and belittling a witness of defendant by questioning him with respect to his knowledge of literature, asking him questions concerning his high school education, and commenting that, \u201cHe [the witness] really doesn\u2019t know anything and he thinks that he does.\u201d\n2. Obscenity\u2014 constitutionality of statute\nG.S. 14-190.1 prohibiting the intentional dissemination of obscenity in a public place is constitutional.\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Perry), Judge, 9 April 1978 Session of Superior Court held in Wayne County.\nThis is a criminal action wherein the defendant, Carl Johnson, was charged in two warrants, proper in form, with intentional dissemination of obscenity in a public place in violation of G.S. 14-190.1. Upon a verdict of guilty in the district court, the defendant appealed and received a trial de novo in Superior Court.\nAt the completion of the State\u2019s evidence, one of the charges against the defendant was dismissed and a verdict of guilty was returned by the jury as to the other offense. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years; however, the sentence was suspended contingent upon defendant\u2019s compliance with certain conditions specified by the court. The defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Assistant Attorney General John R. B. Matthis for the State.\nSmith, Carrington, Patterson, Foll\u00edn & Curtis by Michael K. Curtis and J. David James for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0699-01", "first_page_order": 727, "last_page_order": 730 }