{
  "id": 8626843,
  "name": "STATE v. THOMAS WALTER TAYLOR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1956-03-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "688",
  "last_page": "690",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "243 N.C. 688"
    }
  ],
  "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": "81 S.E. 2d 263",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595038
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0099-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 290,
    "char_count": 3388,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.583,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.488237053477749e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5181358063732673
    },
    "sha256": "87e79cd265d016eea936945bf1b8512894067e1e0c03693b81da9822f01274e7",
    "simhash": "1:17f29d601cca906a",
    "word_count": 596
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:18:50.387183+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. THOMAS WALTER TAYLOR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe questions and comment by the court tended to impeach or discredit the defendant. Counsel may cross-examine. The court cannot. Regardless of how unreasonable or improbable the defendant\u2019s story, the court must maintain the \u201ccold neutrality of an impartial judge.\u201d Though not intended, the trial court\u2019s questions may well have influenced the jury against the defendant. The danger is too great to permit the verdict to stand. The record discloses other assignments of error not without merit.\nOn the authority of S. v. Smith, 240 N.C. 99, 81 S.E. 2d 263, and cases there cited, a new trial is ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William B. Rodman, Jr., Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Marvin Lee Ritch, T. 0. Stennett, Ray S. Farris, and James B. Led-ford for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. THOMAS WALTER TAYLOR.\n(Filed 21 March, 1956.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 50d\u2014\nNew trial awarded in this case for impeaching- question asked defendant by the court upon the trial.\nAppeal by defendant from Rudisill, J., 9 January Regular Criminal Term, MeoicleNburg Superior Court.\nCriminal prosecution upon indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree in the killing of T. A. Parker. Upon arraignment the defendant entered a plea of not guilty. The evidence on the part of the State tended to support the charge.\nThe defendant testified as a witness in his own defense. His testimony tended to show mitigation or excuse. He testified that suspecting his wife of infidelity, he concealed himself in the trunk of her car parked near the cafe where she was employed as a waitress. Upon leaving the cafe about midnight, she drove the car in which the defendant was concealed to a point near a parking lot where she sounded the horn, which was answered by another horn nearby. She entered the parking lot and another car parked near. The wife and someone said \u201chello\u201d to each other and she said, \u201cGet in.\u201d The man got in her car. They talked about beer and whiskey and the defendant recognized the man\u2019s voice as the same voice that he had heard over the telephone calling for defendant\u2019s wife. The defendant then testified they \u201cset there and hugged awhile and kissed and he was trying to get her to have sexual relations with him, but she wouldn\u2019t do it.\u201d Upon objection being interposed, the following occurred:\n\u201cThe Court: Wait a minute, now. Now, son, it\u2019s an evident fact that you couldn\u2019t have seen them hugging there, if you were in the trunk of the car, could you?\n\u201cA. Well, I heard their lips smacking.\n\u201cCourt: Well, they might have been smacking without hugging. What I want you to do is tell what you know of your own knowledge.\n\u201cA. Don\u2019t many people kiss unless they do hug.\n\u201cCourt: Well, they may have a different system about it, you know. What I want to do, I\u2019m trying to give you a chance to get your evidence in there, but there is a rule that you have to go by. Now, just tell what you know and then it\u2019s up to the jury to say whether or not there was any hugging going on, if you didn\u2019t see them if you heard some kissing, then say what you heard.\u201d\nThe defendant objected to the court\u2019s questions and comment. The objection is brought forward as Exception No. 6.\nThe defendant was convicted of murder in the second degree. From the judgment that he be confined in the State\u2019s Prison for 30 years, he appealed, assigning errors.\nWilliam B. Rodman, Jr., Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMarvin Lee Ritch, T. 0. Stennett, Ray S. Farris, and James B. Led-ford for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0688-01",
  "first_page_order": 728,
  "last_page_order": 730
}