{
  "id": 8550568,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Head",
  "decision_date": "1977-06-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7729SC31",
  "first_page": "494",
  "last_page": "496",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 494"
    }
  ],
  "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": "211 S.E. 2d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568225,
        8568386,
        8568195,
        8568275,
        8568159
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0419-03",
        "/nc/286/0419-05",
        "/nc/286/0419-02",
        "/nc/286/0419-04",
        "/nc/286/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 S.E. 2d 289",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551626
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/23/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "253 N.C. 130",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622810
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/253/0130-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 564",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553127
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/24/0564-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 236,
    "char_count": 3244,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.683,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.08189908344795e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7591774655588028
    },
    "sha256": "6a39210440fdb6359bfcc76052ab344feefa8921eaeeab7d68c4890084f7e3b3",
    "simhash": "1:813dbaf1d8fc24d3",
    "word_count": 544
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:28.190456+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nIn this case defendant appeals from a conviction of second degree rape of a sixteen-year-old girl. He was originally indicted for rape and crime against nature, and in 24 N.C. App. 564 (1975), this Court awarded a new trial. In 28 N.C. App. 592 (1976), no error was found in defendant\u2019s subsequent conviction for the crime against nature.\nDefendant argues on this appeal that the trial judge expressed an opinion on the evidence against him because, on three occasions, he prefaced his recapitulation of evidence with the words \u201cthe evidence further shows\u201d instead of the customary phrase, \u201cthe evidence further tends to show.\u201d\nWe have carefully read the judge\u2019s entire charge. It is impeccable save in the single respect noted above. The jurors were clearly and emphatically instructed that they were the sole finders of fact. Both before and after his recapitulation of the evidence the judge emphasized that his recapitulation was only a summary, that it was not a complete summary, that each juror should rely on his own recollection of the evidence, and that what the evidence in fact proved was a question which only the jury could answer. The judge particularly emphasized this point, saying before he began his summary,\n\u201cThe Court will refer to this evidence as \u2018the evidence tends to show.\u2019 That is a deliberate statement, because it is a matter for you to determine what the evidence actually does show.\u201d\nThen, at all times during the recapitulation, except the three times to which the defendant objects, the judge used the time-honored phrase \u201cthe evidence tends to show.\u201d\nThe judge\u2019s three lapses from customary expression were clearly accidental. Because the jurors had been told to expect the accepted phrase, and because they usually heard the accepted phrase, the jurors realized that the deviations were inadvertent and meaningless. The jury\u2019s verdict could not have been influenced by these slips of the tongue. In this case the use of the expression \u201cthe evidence further shows\u201d did not violate G.S. 1-180 and was not reversible error. See, State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130, 116 S.E. 2d 429 (1960); State v. Monticth, 23 N.C. App. 498, 209 S.E. 2d 289 (1974), cert. den. 286 N.C. 419, 211 S.E. 2d 799 (1975).\nWe find\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Patricia B. Hodulik, for the State.",
      "J. H. Bunveil, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH MARION HEAD, JR.\nNo. 7729SC31\n(Filed 15 June 1977)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 114.2 \u2014 jury instructions \u2014 \u201cevidence further shows\u201d \u2014 no expression of opinion\nThe trial court\u2019s use of the phrase, \u201cthe evidence further shows,\u201d in instructing the jury did not violate G.S. 1-180 arid was not reversible error where the court used that phrase three times but at all other times used the phrase, \u201cthe evidence tends to show\u201d; the jurors were clearly and emphatically instructed that they were the sole finders of fact; and the judge told the jurors that he was going to use the phrase, \u201cthe evidence tends to show,\u201d and why he was going to use it.\nAppeal by defendant from Baley, Special Judge. Judgment entered 11 August 1976 in Superior Court, Rutherford County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 31 May 1977.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Patricia B. Hodulik, for the State.\nJ. H. Bunveil, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0494-01",
  "first_page_order": 522,
  "last_page_order": 524
}