{ "id": 8602062, "name": "STATE v. B. A. CAUDLE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Caudle", "decision_date": "1935-05-22", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "249", "last_page": "251", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "208 N.C. 249" } ], "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": "106 N. C., 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 136", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "100 N. C., 528", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651199 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/100/0528-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 283, "char_count": 4270, "ocr_confidence": 0.458, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.548619437958278e-08, "percentile": 0.48794852518428683 }, "sha256": "55f1cb008f496120ce94e2e13ae8e6a35f34fe25535070e08b7f17f06ddb0c48", "simhash": "1:85431441948f5c69", "word_count": 741 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:32.811961+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. B. A. CAUDLE." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ScheNCK, J.\nThe appellant\u2019s first exception is to the court\u2019s refusal to allow one Goodman to testify that he had employed the defendant to try to discover or locate a magneto that was stolen from him. We fail to see the relevancy of this evidence to the issue involved. It could not have been considered as corroborative of the defendant\u2019s testimony, since it was offered before the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf.\nWe have examined the defendant\u2019s several exceptions to the charge and find no reversible error. If the defendant desired more specific instructions he should have' made request therefor. \u201cIt is a well understood rule of practice, upon appeals, reasserted time and again by this Court, that error cannot be assigned and become the subject of review in an omission or neglect to give specific instruction, even when proper in itself, unless asked, and thus called to the attention of the judge, in order that he may rule thereon. This is just to the court and opposing counsel, and indispensable to a fair trial and to prevent surprise.\u201d S. v. Bailey, 100 N. C., 528.\nThere was ample evidence in this ease to sustain a verdict of guilty of larceny, and the charge as it relates to that count, in the absence of requests for more specific instructions or a more detailed and complete statement of the contentions of the defendant, meets the requirements of tbe statute, C. S., 564, and tbe practice of our courts. Tbe jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and sucb verdict is imputed to tbe first count, and tbe judgment must be sustained. It is said in S. v. Toole, 106 N. C., 136, \u201cWhen there are several counts in tbe bill, and there is a general verdict of guilty (or not guilty), that is a verdict, as to each of tbe counts, of guilty (or not guilty, as tbe case may be). If it is a general verdict of not guilty, tbe defendant is entitled to bis discharge. If it is a general verdict of guilty upon an indictment containing several counts, charging offenses of tbe same grade, and punishable alike, tbe verdict upon any one, if valid, supports tbe judgment, and it is immaterial that tbe verdict as to tbe other counts is not good, either by reason of defective counts or by tbe admission of incompetent evidence, or giving objectionable instructions as to sucb other counts, provided tbe errors complained of do not affect tbe valid verdict rendered on this count.\u201d See, also, S. v. Cross, 106 N. C., 650, and cases there cited.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "ScheNCK, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Ailcen for the State, appellee.", "B. M. Covington for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. B. A. CAUDLE.\n(Filed 22 May, 1935.)\n1. Criminal Law G r\u2014\nEvidence cannot be beld competent as corroborative of defendant\u2019s testimony when such evidence is offered before defendant takes tbe stand in bis own bebalf.\n2. Criminal Law I g\u2014\nIt is incumbent upon tbe appellant, if be desires more specific instruction on any point, or a more detailed and complete statement of bis contentions, to make request therefor, and where tbe charge of tbe court is sufficiently full and complete to meet tbe requirements of C. S., 564, any omission will not be beld for reversible error in tbe absence of such request calling tbe attention of tbe court to tbe desired instructions.\n3. Criminal Law I k\u2014\nA general verdict of guilty upon a bill of indictment containing several counts, charging offenses of the same grade, carries with it a verdict of guilty on each count, and will support a judgment upon any valid count in the bill.\nAppeal from Clement, J., at November Term, 1934, of Stamxy.\nAffirmed.\nThe appellant B. A. Candle was tried upon a two-count bill of indictment charging him and Noah Bennett and Tom Taylor with (1) larceny of pipe, pump, and gasoline engine, of value of more than $20.00, the property of the Hardaway Contracting Company, and (2) feloniously receiving said stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen.\nThe jury returned the following verdict: \u201cThat the said Noah Bennett is not guilty, and the said B. A. Caudle and Tom Taylor are each guilty, in the manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment.\u201d\nFrom judgment of imprisonment pronounced upon the verdict, the defendant B. A. Caudle appealed, assigning error.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Ailcen for the State, appellee.\nB. M. Covington for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0249-01", "first_page_order": 315, "last_page_order": 317 }