{
  "id": 8519960,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LINDA ELAINE REID",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reid",
  "decision_date": "1981-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 8119SC89",
  "first_page": "130",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "53 N.C. App. 130"
    }
  ],
  "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": "220 S.E. 2d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567202,
        8567171,
        8567095,
        8567067,
        8567135
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0141-05",
        "/nc/289/0141-04",
        "/nc/289/0141-02",
        "/nc/289/0141-01",
        "/nc/289/0141-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553941
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E. 2d 720",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550297
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562638
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 311,
    "char_count": 4675,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.775,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.3300667438859686e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3357365622474515
    },
    "sha256": "8893429f9fe1339e082e74aba3e04999a9f1530005b4f1151baf2349cfbe5540",
    "simhash": "1:67b4e46f34ce8c50",
    "word_count": 782
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:33:41.579477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and BECTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LINDA ELAINE REID"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant asserts that the failure of the trial court to charge in its final mandate that the jury could find her not guilty by reason of self-defense was reversible error. She relies on State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974); State v. Hunt, 28 N.C. App. 486, 221 S.E. 2d 720 (1976); and State v. Girley, 27 N.C. App. 388, 219 S.E. 2d 301 (1975), disc. rev. denied, 289 N.C. 141, 220 S.E. 2d 799 (1976).\nThe State asserts that the court\u2019s instructions as to self-defense, when viewed as a whole, would have allowed a verdict of not guilty by reason of self-defense. However, the State concedes that it cannot distinguish the case sub judice from Dooley, Hunt and Girley. The charge must include not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict in the final mandate where the defense is raised by the evidence, as it was in defendant\u2019s trial. State v. Dooley, supra; State v. Hunt, supra; and State v. Girley, supra.\nError is also assigned by defendant to the trial court\u2019s failure to declare a mistrial as a result of at least four jurors\u2019 admission that they read a newspaper article about defendant\u2019s trial. After charging the jury the court recessed until the following morning at which time the jury would begin deliberations. During this overnight recess a newspaper article, attached as an exhibit to this appeal, was read by some of the jurors.\nThe newspaper reported a statement the trial judge made out of the presence of the jury in denying defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. In response to defendant\u2019s motion the trial judge replied \u201ctoo many shots .... Motion denied.\u201d It was this response which was accurately quoted by the newspaper and read by the jurors.\nThe question of excessive force was a crucial issue before the jury, and the judge\u2019s inadvertent statement, once read in the newspaper by the jurors, almost certainly and irreparably prejudiced defendant. Were there no other errors in this trial defendant would be entitled to a new trial due to the unfortunate and needless quote by the newspaper of the trial judge\u2019s surplusage made during the press of the trial proceedings, but nevertheless made outside the presence of the jury.\nMoreover, the maladroitness of uttering and reporting the \u201ctoo many shots\u201d statement was compounded to defendant\u2019s further prejudice when the trial judge attempted to cure the prejudice caused by the newspaper. Defendant asserts that the judge\u2019s analogy of the trial to a baseball game \u201cwith the score seventeen to nothing, but our side ain\u2019t been up yet,\u201d although not so intended by the court, amounted to a comment on the weight of the evidence. We cannot disagree with defendant that the judge\u2019s comment might have added credibility to the State\u2019s case in the eyes of the jury.\nDefendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudges VAUGHN and BECTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.",
      "Carroll and Scarbrough, by Phillip G. Carroll and James E. Scarbrough, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LINDA ELAINE REID\nNo. 8119SC89\n(Filed 7 July 1981)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 28\u2014 instructions \u2014 final mandate \u2014possible verdicts \u2014 not guilty by reason of self-defense\nDefendant is entitled to a new trial because of the trial court\u2019s failure to include not guilty by reason of self-defense in its final mandate to the jury.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 99.2; 101\u2014 remark by trial judge \u2014newspaper article read by jurors \u2014expression of opinion on evidence\nDefendant was prejudiced when four jurors in a murder trial read a newspaper article which quoted the trial judge as stating \u201ctoo many shots\u201d in denying defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit. Furthermore, the trial judge\u2019s statement to the jury that his earlier statement was made at a time when the trial was like a baseball game \u201cwith the score seventeen to nothing, but our side ain\u2019t been up yet\u201d constituted an expression of opinion on the evidence.\nAppeal by defendant from Hairston, Judge. Judgment entered 25 September 1980 in Superior Court, ROWAN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 May 1981.\nUpon an indictment for murder defendant was found guilty by a jury of voluntary manslaughter.\nEvidence for the State showed that defendant shot her husband while the two were in their bedroom. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that her husband was intoxicated, started an argument, grabbed a club and threatened to kill defendant. Defendant thereupon retrieved a gun, retreated from deceased who continued to pursue her, fired a warning shot and then fired at deceased when she realized he was not going to stop advancing on her.\nDefendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Haskell, for the State.\nCarroll and Scarbrough, by Phillip G. Carroll and James E. Scarbrough, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0130-01",
  "first_page_order": 158,
  "last_page_order": 160
}