{ "id": 8624722, "name": "STATE v. J. N. CANNON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cannon", "decision_date": "1947-04-16", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "338", "last_page": "339", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "227 N.C. 338" } ], "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": "104 S. E., 670", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "380 N. C., 705", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 298, "char_count": 4336, "ocr_confidence": 0.449, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.296287805729208e-08, "percentile": 0.27099475683717467 }, "sha256": "a1595490e1d3b5713f51bb4dc2f4f9ff29153281cc0bb8e7f7d259a1a832b5ef", "simhash": "1:bf334125ee189ee4", "word_count": 731 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:20:04.384970+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. J. N. CANNON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe principal exception appearing in the defendant\u2019s statement of the ease, which was stressed on the hearing with much insistence and apparent confidence, is the one addressed to the following excerpt from the charge :\nIn order to convict of this crime (subornation of perjury), \u201cthe jury must be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony of the witness claimed to have been suborned was false and the jury must also be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the testimony was given willfully and corruptly knowing it to be false. If the State has satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew or believed such testimony would be false and you are satisfied from the evidence and believed to have known the witness to have been suborned willfully and corruptly testified and you must also be satisfied from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant induced or procured the witness to give such false testimony.\u201d\nTaken with other portions of the charge, i.e., considering it contextually, we think the instruction substantially accords with what was said in S. v. Chambers, 380 N. C., 705, 104 S. E., 670. The latter part was not as clear as it might have been, but taken in its setting, no reversible error has been made manifest.\nAfter recapitulating the evidence, and stating the contentions rather fully, the court gave this closing admonition to the jury:\n\u201cRemember you cannot render a verdict of -guilty against this defendant unless the State has satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to the existence of each and every one of the essential elements which.go to make up the crime of subornation of perjury as those elements have been enumerated to you in my instructions.\u201d\nIn the eyes of the law, the suborner of'perjury and the perjurer stand on an equal footing, especially in respect of turpitude and punishment. G. S., 14-210. The one procures; the other performs. 41 Am. Jur., 40.\nThere are other exceptions which were pressed with vigor, but on the whole, it would seem that the validity of the trial should be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.", "Edward F. Griffin and Yarborough & Yarborough for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. J. N. CANNON.\n(Filed 16 April, 1947.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 81c (2) \u2014\nIn this prosecution for subornation of perjury, the portion of the charge excepted to, though lacking in clarity, is held, not to contain prejudicial error when the charge is construed contextually.\n2. Same\u2014\nA charge which fails to repeat in each instance the phrase \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt\u201d in charging upon the quantum of proof required to establish defendant\u2019s guilt of each of the elements of the offense, but which ends with an admonition that the jury should be satisfied from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt as to defendant\u2019s guilt of each and every essential element of the offense as defined in order to convict, is held not prejudicial.\n3. Perjury \u00a7 4\u2014\nThe suborner of'perjury and the perjurer stand upon an equal footing, especially in respect to turpitude and punishment. G-. S., 14-210.\nAppeal by defendant from Thompson, J., at November Term, 1946, of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with subornation of perjury.\nIt is in evidence that on Sunday afternoon, 25 August, 1946, one Wooster King was seen by three police officers of the City of Baleigh to come out of defendant\u2019s store at 44 South Blount Street, with a bag in his hand. The officers stopped King and found an unopened bottle of wine in the bag. King said he had bought the wine from the defendant. Whereupon, the defendant was charged with violating the city ordinance against selling wine on Sunday.\nWhen the defendant was tried in the City Court, Wooster King testified that he did not get the wine from the defendant, but that he went into the defendant\u2019s store to buy some cigarettes and carried the wine into the store with him. It later developed that King\u2019s testimony was false and that the defendant had told him what to say and promised to pay him $25.00 if he would swear falsely in the case.\nVerdict: Guilty.\nJudgment: Three years in State\u2019s Prison.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nEdward F. Griffin and Yarborough & Yarborough for defendant." }, "file_name": "0338-01", "first_page_order": 386, "last_page_order": 387 }