{
  "id": 8632310,
  "name": "STATE v. TOM WOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wood",
  "decision_date": "1949-10-19",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "740",
  "last_page": "742",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "230 N.C. 740"
    }
  ],
  "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": "88 S.E. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. 803",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272469
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0803-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 400",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 N.C. 591",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630378
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/205/0591-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 725",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221417
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0725-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 S.E. 816",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 221",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627395
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0221-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 733",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 377",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12166109
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0377-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S.E. 466",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N.C. 721",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272147
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0721-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 791",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 S.E. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N.C. 457",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650978
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0457-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 S.E. 712",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 N.C. 789",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/115/0789-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 232",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 697",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616001
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0697-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 852",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12164915
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 662",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0662-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. 520",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697465
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0520-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 S.E. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N.C. 551",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653556
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0551-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 S.E. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 N.C. 687",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273878
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/178/0687-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 594",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8602037
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 S.E. 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 N.C. 584",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662369
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/129/0584-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 523,
    "char_count": 7913,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.472,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2678249677934758e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6139767221950005
    },
    "sha256": "75a0275e1a8943720b90ca4c2122ad986a7411ded890634f545899e145e3c13e",
    "simhash": "1:08ea713d036d0c44",
    "word_count": 1382
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:28:13.210119+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. TOM WOOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nTbe defendant has been convicted of murder in tbe first degree, uxoricide, with no recommendation from tbe jury and sentenced to die as tbe law commands. He appeals, assigning as errors an incautious remark of tbe judge during tbe selection of tbe jury, and alleged inaccuracies in tbe charge.\nDuring tbe selection of tbe jury and after four jurors bad been seated, tbe next prospective juror expressed some doubt on tbe voir dire as to bis ability to distinguish between tbe different degrees of an unlawful homicide or to appreciate tbe significance of a reasonable doubt. Whereupon counsel for defendant asked tbe court to excuse tbe juror. In response, tbe court remarked: \u201cIt is no reflection on tbe juror\u2019s mental capacity not to know these things, as some college professors know little, if anything, except about what they teach.\u201d Tbe defendant objected and excepted to tbe remark. Tbe court found that no prejudice bad resulted therefrom to tbe defendant as no college professors were on tbe jury, but did excuse tbe juror for cause. He was not asked to do more.\nConceding tbe infelicity of tbe remark, it was obviously without material significance to the defendant\u2019s cause. In tbe first place, it bad no reference to tbe testimony of defendant\u2019s witness, Dr. George Silver, psychiatrist and college professor, wh\u00f3 bad not yet gone upon tbe witness stand or testified in tbe case. Moreover, it did not purport to disparage tbe testimony of a college professor in bis field, tbe only field in which tbe defendant\u2019s expert witnesses professed to speak. S. v. Howard, 129 N.C. 584, 40 S.E. 71. Tbe authorities are opposed to any invalidation of the trial on tbe basis of this exception. S. v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E. 2d 594; S. v. Baldwin, 178 N.C. 687, 100 S.E. 348; S. v. Robertson, 121 N.C. 551, 28 S.E. 59; S. v. Savage, 78 N.C. 520.\nException is also taken to a portion of tbe court\u2019s definition of a reasonable doubt: \u201ca reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and common sense, and arising from tbe testimony in tbe case.\u201d Of course, a reasonable doubt may arise from tbe lack of evidence as well as from tbe testimony in the case. But here, the court further instructed tbe jury: \u201cIf upon the conclusion of all tbe testimony and tbe arguments in tbe case, and tbe charge of tbe court, you cannot say that you have an abiding faith to a moral certainty of tbe defendant\u2019s guilt, it would in that event become your duty to find him not guilty.\u201d This was as favorable to tbe defendant as be could expect, and perhaps more, in tbe face of bis admission that be killed bis wife under tbe circumstances disclosed by tbe record. He would hardly be entitled to an acquittal since bis confession of guilt comes from tbe mouths of bis own witnesses, unless be were insane, and as to this be has tbe burden of satisfaction. S. v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662, 51 S.E. 2d 348; S. v. Swink, 229 N.C. 123, 47 S.E. 2d 852; S. v. Harris, 223 N.C. 697, 28 S.E. 2d 232; S. v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 789, 20 S.E. 712; S. v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457, 6 S.E. 657. It was conceded on tbe bearing that tbe defendant\u2019s wife met a cruel death at bis bands.\nTbe cases of S. v. Tyndall, ante, 174, 52 S.E. 2d 272, and S. v. Flynn, ante, 293, 52 S.E. 2d 791, cited and relied upon by the defendant, are inapplicable to tbe facts of tbe instant record. Indeed, tbe Flynn case and authorities there cited, properly interpreted, seem to support tbe State\u2019s contention. No violence was done to tbe rule as stated in S. v. Schoolfield, 184 N.C. 721, 114 S.E. 466.\nComplaint is also registered to tbe court\u2019s reference to tbe defendant\u2019s absence from tbe witness stand, calling attention to tbe fact that this was bis right and should not be considered as a circumstance against him. Gr.S. 8-54. Tbe defendant elected not to testify in bis own behalf, but offered two expert witnesses, psychiatrists, who addressed themselves to bis mental deficiency. Under these circumstances, tbe defendant contends that bis silence should not have been brought to tbe attention of tbe jury at all by tbe trial court. He cites as authority for bis position tbe recent case of S. v. McNeill, 229 N.C. 377, 49 S.E. 2d 733. Suffice it to say McNeill\u2019s case is not at war with what tbe judge said. Moreover, tbe following cases are in support of tbe present charge: S. v. Proctor, 213 N.C. 221, 195 S.E. 816; S. v. Horne, 209 N.C. 725, 184 S.E. 470; S. v. Riddle, 205 N.C. 591, 172 S.E. 400; S. v. Turner, 171 N.C. 803, 88 S.E. 523.\nTbe remaining exceptions are too attenuate to work a new trial or to require elaboration. They are not sustained, albeit they have been carefully examined.\nOn tbe record as presented, no reversible error has been shown. Hence, tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant-Attorney-General Moody for the State.",
      "Everette L. Doffermyre for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. TOM WOOD.\n(Filed 19 October, 1949.)\n1. Criminal Daw \u00a7 50(1\u2014\nA remark of the court, made during tbe selection of the jury, that it was no reflection on the prospective juror\u2019s mentality that he did not understand certain principles of law \u201cas some professors know little, if anything, except about what they teach,\u201d is held not to constitute prejudicial error, since it was not addressed to the testimony of defendant\u2019s witness, a psychiatrist and college professor, who later testified solely on the question of mental capacity, and further did not purport to disparage the testimony of a college professor in his field.\n2. Criminal Daw \u00a7 53b\u2014\nAn instruction that reasonable doubt is a' doubt based on reason and common sense arising from the testimony in the case, cannot be held for prejudicial error when the court immediately thereafter charges that if, upon the conclusion of all the testimony and arguments and the charge, the jury does not have an abiding faith to a moral certainty of defendant\u2019s guilt to acquit him, certainly where testimony of defendant\u2019s admission of guilt comes from his own witnesses.\n3. Criminal Daw \u00a7 5c\u2014\nThe burden is upon defendant to prove his defense of insanity to the satisfaction of the jury.\n4. Criminal Daw \u00a7 53h\u2014\nA charge to the effect that a defendant has a right not to testify and that his failure to testify should not be considered as a circumstance against him, will not be held for error on the ground that it called to the jury\u2019s attention the fact of defendant\u2019s absence from the stand. G.S. 8-54.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Special Judge, at March Term, 1949, of HaRNett.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the murder of his wife, Ruby Wood.\nOn the afternoon of 12 December, 1948, the defendant and his wife left their mill-village apartment in the Town of Erwin and went off, walking-in the direction of the neighborhood milldam and creek. The defendant returned sometime during the night or in the early morning hours. His wife did not. Three days later her body was found partly submerged in the waters of the creek. Examination revealed that she had been brutally stabbed to death by someone using a sharp instrument. Any one of several stabs about her head and chest were lethal in character.\nFollowing an investigation, the defendant was arrested and charged with the murder of his wife. At first he denied it, and sought to give some explanation of her disappearance. Later he confessed to his own witness, Dr. George Silver and others, that \u201cI killed my wife.\u201d\nOn tbe bearing, tbe defendant entered a plea of mental irresponsibility induced by an insane delusion that bis wife was unfaithful to bim and bad been running around with other men. It was conceded on tbe hearing that tbe deceased was a woman of excellent character. Two psychiatrists supported tbe defendant in bis plea of insanity.\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in tbe first degree.\nJudgment: Death by asphyxiation.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant-Attorney-General Moody for the State.\nEverette L. Doffermyre for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0740-01",
  "first_page_order": 796,
  "last_page_order": 798
}
