{ "id": 8611492, "name": "STATE v. JOHNNY RUSSELL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Russell", "decision_date": "1951-04-18", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "487", "last_page": "490", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "233 N.C. 487" } ], "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": "53 S.E. 2d 529", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 495", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630695 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0495-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S.E. 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 463", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12165633 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627028 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S.E. 2d 853", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 470", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630568 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0470-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 459, "char_count": 6945, "ocr_confidence": 0.484, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.099720648990217e-08, "percentile": 0.3806685254622953 }, "sha256": "bc886659301428111812197301070fd2bb268000a9e11f336379f6361de394d9", "simhash": "1:573d52e834d87c6a", "word_count": 1222 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:46.396528+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JOHNNY RUSSELL." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, 0. J.\nTbe record discloses no challenge to the voluntariness of defendant\u2019s confession, either before or after its reception in evidence; nor was there any repudiation, disavowal, or denial of the statements contained therein, save the defendant\u2019s testimony to the effect that he \u201cwas all upset and had been worried to death all morning.\u201d S. v. Rogers, ante, 390. On the strength of the confession, the jury was fully justified in returning the verdict they did, albeit the confession seems to have been offered only in corroboration of the officer\u2019s testimony..\nThe defendant took a number of exceptions to the manner in which the solicitor cross-examined his witnesses and to the general conduct \u25a0 of the hearing. He contends that these exceptions, taken as a whole, or in their totality, if not singly, make it quite clear that the presiding judge inadvertently allowed the solicitor to take charge of the proceeding.\nFor example, the solicitor was allowed to ask one of defendant\u2019s witnesses on cross-examination if he did not know \u201cthat John Dailey is the man that is financing this trial?\u201d This was before the defendant had gone upon the witness stand and his character had not then been put in issue. S. v. Fowler, 230 N.C. 470, 53 S.E. 2d 853; S. v. Choate, 228 N.C. 491, 46 S.E. 2d 476. The answer was, \u201cI do not know.\u201d Then, this question: \u201cDo you know this entire shooting occurred over a white liquor war here between the deceased and this Johnny Eussell and John Dailey and another white man here in town? Objection. Answer: \u201cNo, Sir, I don\u2019t know what the trouble was.\u201d And this further question: \u201cWhat were you talking to John Dailey about here a while ago in the courtroom? Objection. \u201cHe is a well known bootlegger here in town, isn\u2019t he ?\u201d Objection sustained.\nSimilar questions were asked other witnesses and in this way, the defendant contends, his character was impeached and his defense prejudiced, notwithstanding the seemingly harmless and even favorable answers to the questions. S. v. Jones, 229 N.C. 276, 49 S.E. 2d 463. Of course, it is possible for the court, by the manner of conducting the trial, to impeach the testimony of witnesses, or to convey an expression of opinion to the jury on the merits of the case in violation of G.S. 1-180 as rewritten, Chap. 107, S.L. 1949. S. v. Simpson, ante, 438. The defendant thinks this was done here.\nThe defendant has pressed his position in respect of the totality of his exceptions with force and conviction; and but for the acquittal of defendant on the capital offense, it might prove difficult to resist his appeal. S. v. Hart, 186 N.C. 582, 120 S.E. 345. Here, however, the defendant\u2019s confession makes him guilty at least of murder in the second degree, if not of the capital offense, and hence the errors assigned were apparently harmless. S. v. Muse, 230 N.C. 495, 53 S.E. 2d 529.\nTbe defendant could not explain to the satisfaction of the jury, nor is it apparent from the record, how he and the deceased were facing each other, when the shooting occurred, and yet the deceased was shot in the right back and in the back of the head. The jury did not accept his plea of self-defense.\nThe court\u2019s charge to the jury has not been brought forward in the transcript and we must assume the judge properly instructed the jury in respect of the matters about which the defendant now complains. S. v. Hovis, ante, 359.\nOn the record as presented, the exceptions, taken singly or in their total impact, seem insufficient to justify a disturbance of the result below. Hence, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, 0. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moo.dy for the State.", "I. C. Crawford and George Pennell for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHNNY RUSSELL.\n(Filed 18 April, 1951.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 81c (1)\u2014\nWhere upon defendant\u2019s confession admitted in evidence, which was not challenged or repudiated by him, he is guilty of murder in the second degree at least, his contention that in the manner in which the court permitted the solicitor to cross-examine his witnesses and in the general conduct of the trial, the court impeached the testimony of witnesses and conveyed an expression of opinion to the jury on the merits in violation of G.S. 1-180, is feckless, and any error in this respect will be held harmless upon appeal from conviction of second degree murder.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 81b\u2014\nWhere the charge of the court is not in the record it will be assumed that the charge properly instructed the jury upon the law arising upon the evidence.\n\u25a0 Appeal by defendant from Rudisill, J., January Term, 1951, of BUNCOMBE.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one \"Willard Jackson.\nThe record discloses a confession on the part of the defendant. In it he says that on Saturday, 29 July, 1950, Willard Jackson came to his place of business, 26 Clingman Avenue, Asheville, began cursing, \u201cwalked up to me and smacked me across the face. I saw a gun in his pocket.\u201d The defendant ordered him from his premises. \u201cHe went on up the street and said he was going to kill me before dark.\u201d The defendant then says he went home, got his pistol, put it in his pocket and returned to Cling-man Avenue \u201cwhere Willard Jackson was standing.\u201d When the defendant came within 10 or 12 feet of Jackson, he called to him. Jackson turned around, so he says, and \u201cI started shooting at him. I thought that Jackson might shoot me and I was so mad that I started shooting at him when I saw him. I shot Jackson till I saw him fall.\u201d\nThe forgoing is taken from the defendant\u2019s confession which he gave to one of the officers after his arrest.\nOn the trial, the defendant testified that he did not go to his house to get his pistol but got it out of his laundry or place of business and stayed at his home for sometime, hoping that he would not again come in contact with the deceased who was a violent and dangerous man; that when he did return and approached the point where the deceased was standing, the deceased drew his knife and started towards the defendant; that he thereupon shot one time and missed the deceased and as the deceased kept coming towards him, he fired two or three more shots which were fatal; that they were facing each other when the shooting started.\nThe defendant sought to justify the killing on the grounds of self-defense.\nThe doctor who examined the deceased testified that he found two bullet wounds, one in the right back, 3 or 4 inches over the middle of the spine, and the other in the back of the head; that in his opinion the first did and the second could have caused his death. \u201cI don\u2019t think Willard lived long. I think he was dead on arrival at the hospital.\u201d\nVerdict: Not guilty of murder in the first degree; guilty of murder in the second degree.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison for a term of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moo.dy for the State.\nI. C. Crawford and George Pennell for defendant." }, "file_name": "0487-01", "first_page_order": 537, "last_page_order": 540 }