{ "id": 8630708, "name": "STATE v. W. E. GREEN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Green", "decision_date": "1929-10-30", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "624", "last_page": "626", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "197 N.C. 624" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "142 S. E., 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 350", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629314 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0350-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 294, "char_count": 4209, "ocr_confidence": 0.435, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.121269876909223e-08, "percentile": 0.46817768140150257 }, "sha256": "cb2837a07c9e27a1d679b3a75fd2b65a975dddfea5512927274183166127b921", "simhash": "1:b6a65410a7ad3c26", "word_count": 720 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:44.780576+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. W. E. GREEN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brogden, J.\nThe record shows the following:\nDuring the argument of counsel the solicitor, in the closing address, spoke to the jury as follows: \u201cGentlemen of the jury, the defendant has made himself so obnoxious to the court that even his own counsel have deserted him.\u201d The defendant\u2019s counsel excepted to this statement by the solicitor. (One of the counsel for the defendant left the courtroom at the noon recess, and after all the evidence was in, and did not return before verdict, it being agreed there was to be but one argument to the jury by the defendant\u2019s counsel, and that by Mr. McQueen.)\nThe court failed to make any statement, and the Solicitor continued as follows:\n\u201cI have the supremest contempt, if that be a proper word, Mr. McQueen, for any man who will sink so low in society, as this defendant has done, and swear, falsely, that his wife has committed adultery and obtain a divorce on those false grounds. The first thing you know, gentlemen of the jury, this defendant will have some girl around here and fool her into marrying him, claiming he has a divorce, and he will be indicted for bigamy.\u201d\nThe defendant\u2019s counsel objected to these statements on the grounds that there was no evidence of a divorce on the ground of adultery, and that his counsel had not deserted him, and therefore, the solicitor should not draw' conclusions which were not supported by the facts and the evidence.\nThe court again failed to interpose, and the solicitor was allowed to continue this line of argument and statements without interruption.\nThe defendant excepted.\nIn Lamborn v. Hollingsworth, 195 N. C., 350, 142 S. E., 19, this Court said: \u201cUnder our law it is the undoubted right of counsel to argue every phase of the ease supported by the evidence 'without fear or favor, and to deduce from the evidence offered all reasonable inferences which may flow therefrom. [\"The testimony and conduct of witnesses and parties must at .all times be subject to such criticism and attack as the circumstances reasonably justify. However, the baiting and badgering of witnesses and parties ought not to be permitted by the court. Parties come into court, as they have a right to do, to have controversies determined according- to tbe orderly processes of tlie law, and witnesses are compelled to come to court whether they desire to do so or not. At all events, as long as they demean themselves in a courteous manner they are entitled to the same courtesy in the courthouse as would be accorded to a citizen in any other business transaction.\u201dj\nThe argument made in behalf of the State exceeded the limit of fair comment, and was not justified by the evidence introduced in the cause. The defendant testified \u201cthat he had maintained his residence in Florida all of his life and, after the warrant was issued, got a divorce there.\u201d Hence there was nothing in the evidence to indicate that the divorce was secured upon the ground of adultery or that the defendant was attempting to fool any girl into marrying him or that there was any probability of an indictment for bigamy.\nThe defendant, according to the orderly processes of law, appealed to the court for protection, and did not receive it. He is, therefore, entitled to a\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brogden, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the St.a,te.", "Malcolm McQueen and Dye & Clark for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. W. E. GREEN.\n(Filed 30 October, 1929.)\nCriminal law I e \u2014 In this case held: abuse of defendant in solicitor\u2019s argument entitled defendant to new trial.\nIn a criminal action the defendant is entitled to the protection of the court against the unwarranted abuse of his character by the solicitor in his argument when not supported by the evidence or by reasonable inference therefrom, and a new trial will be awarded on appeal where the trial judge refuses the appeal to him by the defendant\u2019s counsel and affords no relief from the unwarranted imputations.\nCeimiNAl action, before Crwrvmer, J., at May Term, 1929, of Cumberland.\nThe defendant was convicted of the crime of assault upon his wife, and also of the crime of nonsupport, and sentenced to serve a term of thirty-six months. From judgment pronounced the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the St.a,te.\nMalcolm McQueen and Dye & Clark for defendant." }, "file_name": "0624-01", "first_page_order": 688, "last_page_order": 690 }