{ "id": 8604964, "name": "STATE v. REEVES GATLIN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gatlin", "decision_date": "1954-11-24", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "175", "last_page": "178", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "241 N.C. 175" } ], "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": "70 S.E. 2d 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626323 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 567", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622428 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627763 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0487-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 1055", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "170 N.C. 716", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662242 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/170/0716-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E. 962", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "124 N.C. 825", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661445 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/124/0825-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S.E. 2d 550", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "235 N.C. 269", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622951 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/235/0269-01" ] }, { "cite": "184 S.E. 7", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N.C. 414", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0414-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 667", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 469", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620930 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 412", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "204 N.C. 329", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617440 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/204/0329-01" ] }, { "cite": "160 S.E. 833", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 568", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626858 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0568-01" ] }, { "cite": "73 S.E. 995", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "158 N.C. 608", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656099 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/158/0608-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 35", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "152 N.C. 790", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273104 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/152/0790-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S.E. 1059", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. 813", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273075 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0813-01" ] }, { "cite": "7 N.C. 571", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8695753 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/7/0571-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S.E. 277", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "138 N.C. 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270041 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/138/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 S.E. 2d 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 174", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602344 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0174-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S.E. 462", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. 48", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658768 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0048-01" ] }, { "cite": "131 S.E. 641", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "191 N.C. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/191/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 Miss. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Miss.", "case_ids": [ 1665741 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/miss/55/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 S.E. 348", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 N.C. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656235 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/133/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628242 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 661", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626570 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 S.E. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615018 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 2d 301", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "218 N.C. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621191 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "179 S.E. 891", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602171 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0251-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 486, "char_count": 7773, "ocr_confidence": 0.475, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.892609050729401e-07, "percentile": 0.8444359111284094 }, "sha256": "a097e9789e3bc36b1365e3157fbd199d907709aa34c266bb10146428a8048aa1", "simhash": "1:8b7b6668aeef0dda", "word_count": 1373 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:40.140494+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. REEVES GATLIN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Winborne, J.\nWhile appellant brings to this Court, and discusses in brief filed here, many assignments of error, based upon exceptions appearing in the case on appeal, the one focused on exception to the verdict is well taken, and sufficient to upset the judgment from which the appeal is taken, and to require a venire de novo. S. v. Lassiter, 208 N.C. 251, 179 S.E. 891; S. v. Cannon, 218 N.C. 466, 11 S.E. 2d 301; S. v. Hill, 224 N.C. 782, 32 S.E. 2d 268; S. v. Yow, 227 N.C. 585, 42 S.E. 2d 661; S. v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 52 S.E. 2d 9.\n\u201cA verdict is the unanimous decision made by the jury and reported to the court,\u201d so declared this Court in opinion by Walher, J., in Smith v. Paul, 133 N.C. 66, 45 S.E. 348, quoting from James v. State, 55 Miss. 57. See also Sitterson v. Sitterson, 191 N.C. 319, 131 S.E. 641.\nAnd a verdict is a substantial right. Wood v. R. R., 131 N.C. 48, 42 S.E. 462; Sitterson v. Sitterson, supra; S. v. Perry, 225 N.C. 174, 33 S.E. 2d 869.\nMoreover, this Court in S. v. Godwin, 138 N.C. 582, 50 S.E. 277, in opinion by Brown, J., epitomizing previous decisions of tbis Court, beginning with S. v. Arrington, 7 N.C. 571, declared: \u201cBefore a verdict returned into open court by a jury is complete, it must be accepted by the court for record. It is the duty of the judge to look after the form and substance of a verdict so as to prevent a doubtful or insufficient finding from passing into the records of the court. For that purpose the court can, at any time while the jury are before it or under its control, see that the jury amend their verdict in form so as to meet the requirements of the law. When a jury returns an informal, insensible, or a repugnant verdict, or one that is not responsive to the issues submitted, they may be directed by the court to retire and reconsider the matter and bring in a proper verdict, i.e., one in proper form. But it is especially incumbent upon the judge not even to suggest the alteration of a verdict in substance, and in such matters he should act with great caution.\u201d See also S. v. McKay, 150 N.C. 813, 63 S.E. 1059; S. v. Parker, 152 N.C. 790, 67 S.E. 35; S. v. Bagley, 158 N.C. 608, 73 S.E. 995; Allen v. Yarborough, 201 N.C. 568, 160 S.E. 833; S. v. Noland, 204 N.C. 329, 168 S.E. 412; Baird v. Ball, 204 N.C. 469, 168 S.E. 667; S. v. Lassiter, supra; Queen v. DeHart, 209 N.C. 414, 184 S.E. 7; S. v. Perry, supra; Edwards v. Motor Co., 235 N.C. 269, 69 S.E. 2d 550.\nIndeed, in Edwards v. Motor Co., supra, Johnson, J., writing for the Court, said: \u201cWhen the findings are indefinite or inconsistent, the presiding judge may give additional instructions and direct the jury to retire again and bring in a proper verdict, but he may not tell them what their verdict shall be,\u201d citing Baird v. Ball, supra.\nIn the light of these principles we have no hesitancy in holding that the verdict \u201cGuilty of driving\u201d is no crime and is not responsive to the charge in the indictment. Hence the trial judge had the discretionary power to give further instructions to the jury and order that they retire and give further consideration to the matter, and bring in a proper verdict. But the judge was without authority to suggest to the jury what their verdict should be.\nThe Attorney-General, in his brief, cites and relies upon these cases: S. v. Lucas, 124 N.C. 825, 32 S.E. 962; S. v. Walker, 170 N.C. 716, 86 S.E. 1055; S. v. Walls, 211 N.C. 487, 191 S.E. 232; S. v. Wilson, 218 N.C. 556, 11 S.E. 2d 567; S. v. Sears, 235 N.C. 623, 70 S.E. 2d 907, as authorities supporting the validity of the manner in which the verdict was received in the instant case. However, careful consideration of the factual situations in these cases leads to the conclusion that they are not out of harmony with the principles hereinabove set forth. But if they were, this Court would not be inclined to follow them, and deviate from the salutary principles, \u2014 long safeguarded in the pages of our decisions.\nFor reasons stated the judgment below is stricken out. A trial anew is ordered as to appellant.\nVenire de novo.", "type": "majority", "author": "Winborne, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.", "Ward <& Tticher for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. REEVES GATLIN.\n(Filed 24 November, 1954.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 54b\u2014\nA verdict is the unanimous decision made by the jury and reported to the court.\n2. Same\u2014\nA verdict is a substantial right.\nS. Criminal Law \u00a7 54e\u2014\nBefore the verdict is complete, it must be accepted by the court, and when the jury returns an informal, repugnant, or insensible verdict or one that is not responsive to the issues, the court may give additional instructions, direct the jury to reconsider and bring in a proper verdict, but in doing so, the court must act with great caution so as not even to suggest what their verdict should be.\n4. Same: Automobiles \u00a7 28g\u2014\nIn this prosecution for manslaughter, each defendant contended that the other was driving the automobile involved in the fatal accident. The jury returned a verdict that one defendant was not guilty of manslaughter and that the other defendant was \u201cguilty of driving.\u201d The court immediately inquired \u201cand guilty of manslaughter?\u201d. The jury replied, \u201cyes.\u201d Held: \u201cGuilty of driving\u201d is no crime and the verdict is not responsive to the charge, and while the court had discretionary power to give additional instructions and have the jury redeliberate, the court was without authority to suggest to the jury what their verdict should be, and a new trial is ordered.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., at April Term, 1954, of CRAVEN.\nCriminal prosecution upon a true bill of indictment charging defendants with manslaughter, that is, that Wayne Anderson and Beeves Gatlin, on 27 February, 1953, at and in Craven County, \u201cdid unlawfully, willfully and feloniously hill and slay one Doris Franks, contrary to the statute,\u201d etc.\nEach defendant tendered a plea of not guilty to manslaughter.\nThe theory of the trial in Superior Court, as revealed by the evidence offered, was that the death of the child Doris Franks was proximately caused by the reckless operation of a Ford truck upon a public highway near Vanceboro, N. C.; that the truck was in charge of defendant Eeeves Gatlin, and was occupied by him and defendant Wayne Anderson and one Earl Jones; that all three of them were under the influence of intoxicating liquor; and that the truck was being driven by defendant Gatlin, or by defendant Anderson, with the consent and approval of defendant Gatlin and with knowledge of Anderson\u2019s intoxicated condition. And the evidence tends to show that Gatlin contended that Anderson was driving the truck, and that Anderson contended that Gatlin was driving it.\nThe case was presented to the jury upon the evidence offered by the State, and by the defendants, under the charge of the court. And the transcript of the record discloses that the jurors \u201cfor their verdict say that the defendant Wayne Anderson is not guilty of manslaughter, and that the defendant Reeves Gatlin is guilty of driving.\u201d (By the court:) \u201cAnd guilty of manslaughter?\u201d (The jury replied:) \u201cYes.\u201d\nOn the other hand, the case on appeal states: \u201cThe jury returned to the courtroom and the following colloquy took place: The defendant Wayne Anderson is not guilty of manslaughter and that the defendant Reeves Gatlin is guilty of driving. Without further statement by the jury the court directed this inquiry to them, \u201cAnd guilty of manslaughter?\u201d To which the juror replied, \u201cYes.\u201d To the foregoing the defendant objects and excepts. Exception No. XLIX.\nJudgment: Let the defendant be confined in the State Prison at Raleigh for not less than ten (10) nor more than fifteen (15) years.\nDefendant Reeves Gatlin appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Moody for the State.\nWard <& Tticher for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0175-01", "first_page_order": 213, "last_page_order": 216 }