{
  "id": 8552042,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE STEELE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Steele",
  "decision_date": "1974-11-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 7421SC729",
  "first_page": "524",
  "last_page": "527",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 524"
    }
  ],
  "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": "282 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567845,
        8567781,
        8567870,
        8567807
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0584-03",
        "/nc/282/0584-01",
        "/nc/282/0584-04",
        "/nc/282/0584-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 655",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C.App. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553028
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "171 S.E. 2d 339",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548258
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0092-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "150 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561746
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0320-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 S.E. 2d 288",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 688",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625874
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0688-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 412",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 267",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561247
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0267-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "107 S.E. 2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 516",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618419
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0516-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 401,
    "char_count": 5511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1850200046748689e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5898079386095483
    },
    "sha256": "0b4ff5cf43ef227ff8283b0e14fba0118f5f57e8000fc9590eca3cf681b29640",
    "simhash": "1:4720f7aa710ca9c3",
    "word_count": 919
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE STEELE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nIn his first assignment of error the defendant contends that the trial court committed error by repeatedly intervening with comments and questions with such regularity and in such a manner as to amount to an expression of opinion by the court and by assuming the role of prosecutor in sustaining his own objections, all in violation of G.S. 1-180. Altogether the trial judge intervened with questions or comments well over 100 times. After examining the record closely, we feel compelled to sustain this assignment of error.\n\u201cG.S. 1-180 imposes on the trial judge the duty of absolute impartiality. Nowell v. Neal, 249 N.C. 516, 107 S.E. 2d 107 (1959). It forbids the judge to intimate his opinion in any form whatever, \u2018it being the intent of the law to insure to each and every litigant a fair and impartial trial before the jury.\u2019 State v. Owenby, 226 N.C. 521, 39 S.E. 2d 378 (1946). It has been construed to include any opinion or intimation of the judge at any time during the trial which is calculated to prejudice either of the parties in the eyes of the jury. State v. Douglas, 268 N.C. 267, 150 S.E. 2d 412 (1966) ; Everette v. Lumber Company, 250 N.C. 688, 110 S.E. 2d 288 (1959). \u2018Both the courts and those engaged in the active trial practice recognize the strong influence a trial judge may wield over the jury. \u201cThe trial judge occupies an exalted station. Jurors entertain great respect for his opinion, and are easily influenced by any suggestion coming from him. As a consequence, he must abstain from conduct or language which tends to discredit or prejudice the accused or his cause with the jury. G.S. 1-180.\u201d \u2019 State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 150 S.E. 2d 481 (1966).\u201d (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128 (1971).\nApplying well-settled principles to the facts now before the Court we note that \u201c[i]t is not . . . improper for the court to ask questions for the purpose of obtaining a proper understanding and clarification of a witness\u2019 testimony as long as the trial judge does not engage in frequent interruptions and prolonged questioning. (Citation omitted.)\u201d (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Huffman, 7 N.C. App. 92, 171 S.E. 2d 339 (1969). But \u201c [i] f by their tenor, their frequency, or by the persistence of the trial judge they tend to convey to the jury in any manner at any stage of the trial the \u2018impression of judicial leaning,\u2019 they violate the purpose and intent of G.S. 1-180 and constitute prejudicial error.\u201d State v. Frazier, supra, and cases cited therein; State v. Lowery, 12 N.C. App. 538, 183 S.E. 2d 797 (1971) ; State v. Wright, 16 N.C.App. 562, 192 S.E. 2d 655 (1972), cert. denied 282 N.C. 584 (1973).\nAs we have already pointed out, here the trial judge intervened with questions and comments well over 100 times. In reviewing the record we find that many of the questions posed to witnesses by the trial judge went beyond an effort to obtain a proper understanding and clarification of their testimony. Furthermore, several of the judge\u2019s comments tended to belittle and humiliate defense counsel in the eyes of the jury. While any one of these questions or comments standing alone, even though erroneous, might not be regarded as prejudicial, when viewed in light of their cumulative effect upon the jury we conclude they seriously prejudiced defendant\u2019s case.\nWe also find merit in the defendant\u2019s contention that the trial judge assumed the role of the solicitor in sustaining his own objections to testimony offered by the defendant. Several times during the course of the trial, apparently in an effort to speed up the trial, the trial judge himself entered and sustained his own objections. Although these objections would have been proper objections for the solicitor to make, the cumulative effect of the court\u2019s repeatedly assuming the role of the solicitor constituted prejudicial error.\nAdditionally, although inadvertently done, the court in his instructions to the jury, used language which could have led the jury to believe that the court was convinced of defendant\u2019s guilt.\nFor the reasons above set out, there must be a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Hedrick and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Ricks, for the State.",
      "Roberts, Frye and Booth, by Leslie G. Frye, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE STEELE, JR.\nNo. 7421SC729\n(Filed 6 November 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 questioning of witnesses by judge \u2014 sustaining own objections by judge\nDefendant is entitled to a new trial where the trial court intervened with questions and comments well over 100 times, belittled and humiliated defense counsel, and assumed the role of solicitor in sustaining his own objections to testimony offered by defendant. \u25a0\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, Judge, 1 April 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 September 1974.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with breaking and entering, and larceny and receiving. Following presentation of the evidence the jury returned verdicts of guilty of breaking and entering and larceny and the trial judge imposed a sentence of not less than five years nor more than ten years for the crime of breaking and entering and a sentence of three years for the crime of larceny, with sentence suspended for five years upon defendant\u2019s compliance with certain named conditions. Defendant appealed.\nAdditional facts necessary for decision are set forth in the opinion.\nAttorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Ricks, for the State.\nRoberts, Frye and Booth, by Leslie G. Frye, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0524-01",
  "first_page_order": 552,
  "last_page_order": 555
}