{
  "id": 8554936,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL FRANKLIN JORDAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jordan",
  "decision_date": "1976-08-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7621SC214",
  "first_page": "529",
  "last_page": "532",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 N.C. App. 529"
    }
  ],
  "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": "77 S.E. 2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604063
      ],
      "year": 1953,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 768",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614324
      ],
      "year": 1944,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0768-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 375,
    "char_count": 6788,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.659,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530977674760189
    },
    "sha256": "677889711e94064ff749e90b87ef474568c57cb54cec2e6b449d33f8273d3ebf",
    "simhash": "1:822b784ed5dfca78",
    "word_count": 1179
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL FRANKLIN JORDAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe following appears in the record and is the basis of defendant\u2019s ninth assignment of error.\n\u201cDeputy Sheriff Rollinson: The foreman of the jury would like to speak to you.\nThe Court: You will have to bring all the other members of the jury in, if he wishes to speak to the court.\n(The jury returned to the courtroom.)\nForeman Repetto: Your Honor, may I speak to you a second?\nThe Court: Just one moment. It will have*to be in open court and on the record. All right, do you have a question ?\nForeman Repetto: We have reached our verdict, so the question will not affect our verdict. But our question is, can we, the jury recommend any mercy? And at once\u2014 that is, two questions: Can we recommend mercy and then two, can we recommend any psychiatric treatment, or is that purely your decision?\nThe Court: Well, the matter of judgment is entirely a matter for the court, not for the jury. However, I will consider any recommendations that you may make, but I would prefer that we take the verdict before receiving those recommendations.\u201d\nBased on the foregoing, the defendant contends \u201cthe trial court committed prejudicial error in telling the jury that he would consider any recommendations that they made.\u201d We find this assignment of error to be without merit.\nThe general rule in North Carolina is that it is error for the court to instruct the jury \u201ceither in the general charge or in response to an inquiry made by the jury, that they may return a verdict with recommendation of mercy, or with other words having reference, necessarily, to the judgment to be rendered by the court.\u201d 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 120, p. 32, citing State v. Rowell, 224 N.C. 768, 32 S.E. 2d 356 (1944).\nThe record discloses that before the verdict was taken the jury made it quite clear to the court that it had reached its verdict before it was permitted to ask the court if it could recommend mercy or psychiatric treatment. Furthermore, after the verdict was taken and the defendant\u2019s counsel declined to have the jury polled, the foreman stated to the court that \u201cwe went to extremes to get the verdict first, before we discussed the question of mercy or psychiatric treatment.\u201d While it would have been more appropriate for the judge to have explained to the jury before taking the verdict that the matter of judgment was not part of their responsibility and was entirely the province of the trial court, State v. Davis, 238 N.C. 252, 77 S.E. 2d 630 (1953), we do not perceive, under the circumstances of this record, any possible prejudice to the defendant in the court\u2019s telling the jury, before he took the verdict, that he would consider any recommendation that it made, after the verdict was received.\nThe defendant has numerous other assignments of error which we have carefully examined and find to be without merit. The defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney William F. Briley for the State.",
      "Wilson and Morrow by John F. Morrow for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HAZEL FRANKLIN JORDAN\nNo. 7621SC214\n(Filed 18 August 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 120\u2014 jury verdict \u2014 recommendation of mercy \u2014 jury instruction inappropriate\nThe general rule in N. C. is that it is error for the court to instruct the jury either in the general charge or in response to an inquiry made by the jury that they may return a verdict with recommendation of mercy, or with other words having reference, necessarily, to the judgment to be rendered by the court.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 120\u2014 jury verdict \u2014 recommendation of mercy or psychiatric treatment \u2014 instruction not prejudicial\nDefendant was not prejudiced where the jury informed the court that it had reached its verdict, the jury foreman then asked the court if the jury might recommend mercy or psychiatric treatment, and the court responded, before he took the verdict, that he would consider any recommendation that the jury made, after the verdict was received, though it would have been more appropriate for the judge to have explained to the jury before taking the verdict that the matter of judgment was not part of their responsibility and was entirely the province of the trial court.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 26 November 1975 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 10 June 1976.\nThe defendant, Hazel Franklin Jordan, was charged in separate bills of indictment for assault on Nancy Jordan with the use of a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury; for discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling; and for felonious entry with intent to commit a felony. He pleaded not guilty and the State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nDefendant was separated from his wife on the night of 17 August 1975 when he went to her trailer and cut the electrical and telephone wires. Michael Potter, who was visiting defendant\u2019s wife, Nancy Jordan, opened the door to investigate and the defendant shot at him. The bullet missed, going into the ceiling of the trailer. Before Potter could lock the door, the defendant came into the trailer, chased his wife out the back door into the woods and shot her in the chest. Potter ran next door to Noah Jones\u2019s trailer and had Jones call the Sheriff. When defendant\u2019s wife beat on the door to be let in, defendant pushed through the door behind her, looking for Potter, saying he was going to kill him. Jones got the defendant\u2019s gun away from him and defendant ran. The defendant did not appear drunk or smell of alcohol at the time. He had threatened his wife several times prior to the night of 17 August.\nThe defendant testified and offered evidence to show that he was drunk at the time and did not remember anything about the night of the alleged offenses. He was also under a psychiatrist\u2019s care at the time and had been taking \u201cnerve pills\u201d \u2014 two of them on 17 August. He offered into evidence portions of taped conversations with his wife subsequent to 17 August in which she stated to him that he had not bioken into Jones\u2019s trailer; that he was drunk on the night of 17 August; that he was not responsible for his actions that night; and that she did not want to testify but that \u201cthey browbeat her\u201d so she would testify.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged in all three indictments. From judgment imposed that he be imprisoned sixteen to twenty years on the felonious assault charge, eight to ten years on the charge of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, and eight to ten years on the felonious entry charge, the sentence in the assault charge to run concurrently with the other two sentences, which were to run consecutively, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney William F. Briley for the State.\nWilson and Morrow by John F. Morrow for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0529-01",
  "first_page_order": 557,
  "last_page_order": 560
}
