{
  "id": 8623659,
  "name": "STATE v. OLLIE BEAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bean",
  "decision_date": "1936-12-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "59",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 N.C. 59"
    }
  ],
  "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": "210 N. C., 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0556-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 360,
    "char_count": 6049,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.487,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6160525584670024e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6864458120917475
    },
    "sha256": "9133c11b14971e9784fcef395d20011c5d6edbb96681120277b5ff54a8deaa62",
    "simhash": "1:da12bb50f4232687",
    "word_count": 1066
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:14.990140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. OLLIE BEAN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ScheNCK, J.\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of imprisonment upon a conviction of manslaughter.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that the defendant shot and killed the deceased near the home of the defendant, and that the defendant told the witness, Mrs. Adeline McNeill, that \u201cAndrew (the deceased) didn\u2019t see me and there wasn\u2019t a word spoke \u2014 said Edward (son of the defendant) had been out to the chicken house and told him (defendant) that he (deceased) was coming with a gun and he (defendant) went in the kitchen and cracked the door open, and when he (deceased) got even with the well he downed him (deceased), and he fell like a beef shot, and there wasn\u2019t a word spoken and Andrew (the deceased) didn\u2019t see him (defendant) when he shot.\u201d\nThe defendant admitted that he fired the fatal shot, and .relied principally upon his own testimony to establish his plea of self-defense. The defendant testified that about 3 :30 o\u2019clock in\u2019the afternoon of 31 Decern-ber, 1935, Andrew Comer, tbe deceased, came to bis borne and cursed and abused tbe defendant, and that about 7:00 o\u2019clock of tbe same day bis oldest boy bad been out to tbe cbieken coop and be (defendant) went into tbe cook room and \u201csaw Mr. Comer coming before be got to tbe wagon shelter and be stopped there and viewed tbe bouse I guess for a couple of minutes. I was in tbe door with no light in tbe room; tbe light was in tbe other part of tbe bouse and so be come up tbe path where we bad drug tbe snow off, right by tbe steps, and placed himself under tbe well shelter, or tbe shadow of it. . . . It was a very bright moon-shining night and I could see Mr. Comer as be approached tbe bouse, and be was carrying that gun there. Comer bailed me, \u2018Hey, come out!\u2019 I recognized bis voice; it was Andrew Comer\u2019s voice. When I spoke, I says, \u2018Hey!\u2019 And when I spoke be riz with bis gun stooped over like this. He was standing behind tbe well, and I saw bis gun, and I shot him. I shot him when be was raising tbe gun and pointing it right towards me. He could see me from where be was and I could see him from where I was.\n\u201cAfter I shot be fell and I stood there for about two minutes, then-1 went out to where be was and be was breathing; wasn\u2019t any further down than bis throat. I went back in tbe bouse and sent my boys after a doctor and tbe law.\u201d\nTbe following appears in tbe record:\n\u201cBy tbe court: How old is your oldest boy ?\n\u201cA. Seventeen years old in September.\n\u201cQ. Is be here?\n\u201cA. Yes, sir.\n\u201cTo tbe foregoing questions and answers tbe defendant objects; objection overruled; defendant excepted.\u201d\nHis Honor charged tbe jury that \u201cTbe State insists and contends, gentlemen of tbe jury, that there were iDeople there who knew about tbe facts; that there was a 17-year-old boy who tbe defendant himself says knew all about tbe circumstances; that be was tbe one who notified tbe defendant that tbe deceased was coming; that be was tbe one who notified him that tbe deceased bad a shotgun; that be was tbe one who notified him of tbe deceased\u2019s approach, and that be was here in tbe courtroom in your presence and was not called by tbe defendant to testify as to these material facts when tbe burden of proof was upon him.\u201d\nThe exception must be sustained, as the questions propounded by the court to the defendant clearly bad the effect of impeaching bis testimony as a witness in bis own behalf, and were, therefore, in violation of C. S., 564. S. v. Winckler, 210 N. C., 556, and cases there cited. That these questions bad this effect is emphasized by the fact that the court in the charge set forth as a contention of the State that the testimony of the defendant could not be relied upon because it was uncorroborated, notwithstanding the fact that the oldest boy of the defendant, who saw what happened, was present in the courtroom, and was not called to testify.\nThe failure of the defendant to avail himself of the opportunity to place bis son upon the stand in corroboration of bis own testimony was a fact proper for the prosecuting attorney to- develop, since partisan counsel are permitted to impeach the testimony of any adverse witness, but this right to impeach a witness does not extend to the trial judge, who is inhibited by the statute from giving \u201can opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven,\u201d and this inhibition is against expressing Or showing such an opinion by interrogation, as well as by statement or action.\nFor tbe error assigned, tbe defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ScheNCK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.",
      "J. H. Scott and W. R. Clegg for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. OLLIE BEAN.\n(Filed 16 December, 1936.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 50 \u2014 Interrogatories by court addressed to defendant testifying in his own behalf held for error as expression of opinion on evidence.\nDefendant, charged with homicide, testified as to his version of the fatal killing upon his contention of self-defense, and narrated the actions of himself, his oldest son, and the deceased. Upon the conclusion of his testimony the court, by interrogation objected to by defendant\u2019s counsel, brought out the fact that the son was seventeen years old, and was present in the courtroom. In his charge the court set forth the contention of the State that defendant\u2019s testimony could not be relied upon because uncorroborated, notwithstanding the fact'that defendant\u2019s oldest son, who saw what happened, was present in the courtroom. Held: Although the prosecuting attorney might impeach defendant\u2019s testimony by developing the fact that defendant\u2019s son was not called as a witness to corroborate defendant\u2019s testimony, the interrogatories by the court to the same effect, emphasized by the statement of the State\u2019s contentions, constitute reversible error, the statute, O. S-, 564, inhibiting an expression or showing of opinion by the court as to whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven by interrogation as well as by statement or action.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, J., at May Term, 1936, of Mooee.\nNew trial.\nAttorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General McMullan for the State.\nJ. H. Scott and W. R. Clegg for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0059-01",
  "first_page_order": 125,
  "last_page_order": 127
}