{ "id": 8621354, "name": "STATE v. JOHN WILLIAMSON, alias BUTTERFIELD", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williamson", "decision_date": "1959-04-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "204", "last_page": "209", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "250 N.C. 204" } ], "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": "8 S.E. 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "101 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651482 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/101/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 670", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624720 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 S.E. 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "142 N.C. 577", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652554 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/142/0577-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 S.E. 2d 9", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 545", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625418 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0545-01" ] }, { "cite": "71 S.E. 2d 924", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622750 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0130-01" ] }, { "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": "42 S.E. 534", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658950 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 60", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8594845 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0060-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "146 N.C. 677", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272360 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/146/0677-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 855", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "144 N.C. 184", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659322 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/144/0184-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 568", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 438", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610305 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "442" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0438-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E. 759", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. 586", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272095 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0586-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 594, "char_count": 11975, "ocr_confidence": 0.423, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.9051099231009736e-07, "percentile": 0.730797239530181 }, "sha256": "8515fc8a996f6e512c02e1f5f4d7f5557013db75752432bd0b51c2af5ef51c2c", "simhash": "1:57f690a9307e5ff9", "word_count": 2092 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:40.326881+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JOHN WILLIAMSON, alias BUTTERFIELD." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MooRE, J:\nThe fifth and eleventh assignments of error relate to statements made by the judge in 'the presence of the jury during the course of the trial. Defendant challenges these statements on the ground that they constitute expressions of opinion as to the weight and sufficiency of the evidence and were prejudicial to him.\nFifth Assignment of Error: Donald Parker testified for the State. Over the objection of ithe defendant he testified in substance that at the defendant\u2019s house on an occasion when he made -a purchase of liquor he saw girls sitting on men\u2019s laps. At this point the following colloquy took place:\n\u201cMr. Turner (attorney for defendant): If your Honor please, would you hear me on it? This is a specific indictment about liquor, and that has nothing to do with liquor, on the face of the earth, is my contention.\n\u201cCourt: They both go hand in hand.\u201d\nEleventh Assignment of Error: At the close of the evidence there was the 'following exchange between the attorney for the defendant' and the court:\n\u201cCourt: All right. Do you want to argue the case?\n\u201cMr. Turner: Yes, Sir.\n\u201cCourt: I will tell you, frankly, I am going to -instruct the jury if they believe the evidence and find beyond a. reasonable doubt from the evidence that he had liquor there and had it for sale, they will find him guilty. That is a peremptory instruction.\u201d\nThere were arguments both fox the defendant and the State. The court instructed the jury but not peremptorily.\nG.S. \u00cd-180 is, in .part, as follows: \u201cNo judge, in giving a charge to the petit jury, either in a civil or criminal action, shall give an opinion whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proven, that being \"the true office and province of the jury, but be shall .declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.\u201d This section applies to any expression of opinion by the judge in the hearing of the jury- at any time during the trial. State v. Cook, 162 N.C. 586, 77 S.E. 759.\nIn State v. Simpson, 233 N.C. 438, 442, 64 S.E. 2d 568, this Court said: \u201cIt can make no difference in what way or manner or when-the opinion of the judge is conveyed to the jury, whether directly or-indirectly, by comment on the testimony of a witness, by arraying the evidence unequally in the charge, by unbalancing the. contentions of the parties, by the choice of language in stating the contentions, or by the general tone and tenor of the trial. The statute forbids- -any intimation of his opinion in any form whatever, it being \u00a1the intent of the law to insure to each and every litigant a fair and impartial trial before the jury. Withers v. Lane, 144 N.C. 184, 56 S.E. 855. \u2018The slightest intimation from a judge as to the strength of the evidence or as to the credibility of -a witness will always have great weight with the jury, -and, 'therefore, we must be careful to see that neither party is unduly prejudiced by -an expression from the bench which- is likely to prevent a fair and impartial trial\u2019 \u2014 Walker, J., in S. v. Ownby, 146 N.C. 677, 61 S.E. 630.\u201d\n\u201cWhether the conduct or the language of the judge amounts to an expression of his opinion on the facts is to be determined by its probable meaning to the jury, and not by the motive of the judge.\u201d State v. Canipe, 240 N.C. 60, 81 S.E. 2d 173.\nThe epigrammatical statement of the judge -that \u201cthey both (liquor and a display of amorousness) go hand in hand\u201d was prejudicial error when considered in the light of the charge upon which the defendant was being tried and the other circumstances of the ease. It suggests that one does not exist without the other, and that evidence of the intimacy of the girls and men was direct proof of liquor dealings by the defendant. In short, it was an expression of opinion upon the weight of the pertinent evidence adverse to the defendant, and must necessarily have been so understood by the jury. It is better practice for the court not to explain -a ruling on the 'admission of evidence, certainly not by way of maxim. This statement falls within that forbidden class illustrated by the case of Meadows v. Telegraph Co., 131 N.C. 73, 42 S.E. 534, in which the judge used the expression: \u201cProverbial slowness of the messenger boy.\u201d The defendant was being sued for late delivery of a telegram.\nWe do not hold that the court was in error in the admission of the testimony of the witness Donald Parker. Our 'opinion is that it was competent and relevant under the circumstances.\nAs to the exchange between the court and defendant\u2019s attorney immediately preceding the jury .speeches, we are of the opinion that the statements of the judge were understood by the jury to .mean that if .was the judge\u2019s opinion that the evidence was sufficient for conviction and that .a jury speech in his behalf would be useless and a waste of time. It is said in State v. Hart, 186 N.C. 582, 120 S.E. 345, that \u201cthis statute (G.S. 1-180) has been interpreted', by us to mean that no judge, in charging the jury, or at any time during the trial shall intimate whether a fact is fully .or sufficiently proved.\u201d (Parentheses ours).\nWe do not decide and we refrain from discussing whether or not a .peremptory instruction would have been proper in the light of the evidence. Suffice it to say on this point that there .are .situations in which peremptory instructions are appropriate. State v. Taylor, 236 N.C. 130, 71 S.E. 2d 924. However, the statement made by Judge Gambill when he was speaking to defendant\u2019s counsel does not fully comply with the essentials of .such an instruction as set out in the Taylor case, nor does it specifically apply the .instructions to the charges in the warrant. Furthermore, peremptory instructions, to avoid the objection that they are expresssions of opinion, should be given directly to the jury at the proper time in the orderly progress of the trial arid hot during ;a discourse with attorneys in the presence of the jury.\nCertain of the defendant\u2019s assignments of error relate to the correctness .of the judge\u2019s charge. Since there must be .a new trial, we refrain from a discussion of these assignments. They involve no novel or unsettled propositions of law.\nThere were a number of assignments of error based upon exceptions to the admission of evidence. We have carefully considered each of them and find them without merit. When a defendant is charged with \u25a0the possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and it appears from the evidence that he has .possessed or sol'd liquor at his house, it is competent for the State to show the number, conduct and condition as to intoxication of persons found .at (his house when it is shown that he has liquor in his possession. The .declaration attributed to the defendant \u201c.that 'he was running a whore-house in his back yard\u201d is certainly competent on that charge and under those circumstances.\nSince there must be a new trial, we think the following discussion appropriate. It is -observed that the warrant in this case charges nine distkiot 'Criminal \u2018offenses in une .count. Not having moved -to quash the warrant before pleading, defendant waived -the question of duplicity. State v. Calcutt, 219 N.C. 545, 15 S.E. 2d 9. After a \u00a1plea of not guilty a motion to quash is .allowable only in the discretion of the court. State v. Burnett, 142 N.C. 577, 55 S.E. 72. Since issue was joined on all the charges, the court was compelled to permit any evidence to be offered which was competent and .pertinent on any of the charges. When a defendant in apt time moves to quash the warrant on the ground of duplicity, the solicitor may take a nol. pros, as to all of the charges except one and .then proceed to trial on the one charge. State v. Avery, 236 N.C. 276, 72 S.E. 2d 670; State v. Cooper, 101 N.C. 684, 8 S.E. 134. Or the solicitor may upon motion and leave of court amend the warrant and state in \u00a1separate counts the charges upon which-he desires to proceed, provided they were originally set out in the warrant. G.S. 18-10 is in part as follows: \u201cIn any .affidavit, information; warrant, or indictment for the violation of this article, separate offenses may be united in separate counts, and the defendant may be .tried on all \u00a1at one trial, and/ \u00a1the penalty for all offenses may be imposed.\u201d\nNew Trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "MooRE, J:" } ], "attorneys": [ "Spry, White & Hamrick for defendant, appellant.", "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHN WILLIAMSON, alias BUTTERFIELD.\n(Filed 29 April, 1959.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 94\u2014\nThe statutory prohibition against an expression of opinion on the evidence \u00a1by the court in the hearing of 'the jury applies ait any time during! the trial, and whether the language of the court amounts to an expression of opinion on the facts is to he determined by its probable meaning to 'the jury and nott by the motive of the judge. (LS. 1-180.\n2. Same: Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 15\u2014\nIn this prosecution for violations of the liquor laws, the court,, in explaining its ruMng admitting testimony of a witness that he saw intimacies between girls and men on the occasion 'he purchased liquor at defendant\u2019s house, stated that \u201cthey both go hand in hand.\u201d Held: The statement of the court must be held prejudicial as intimating that evidence of the intimacy of the girls and men was direct proof of liquor dealings by defendant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 94\u2014\nA statement by the court at the conclusion of the evidence that counsel might argue the case but that the court was going to instruct the jury peremptorily, must be held for prejudicial error as a prohibited expression of opinion as to whether a fact had been fully or sufficiently proven. Such statement may not be held harmless even when the evi-. dence is sufficient to support a peremptory instruction, since a peremp-.' \u25a0tory instruction should be given directly to the jury at the proper tirpe in the orderly .progress of the trial and not during a discourse with attorneys in the presence of the jury.\n4. Intoxicating Liquor \u00a7 12\u2014\nIn a prosecution for .possession of intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale it is competent for the State, after introducing evidence that defendant possessed or sold liquor at his house, to introduce evidence as to the conduct and intoxication of persons found at defendant\u2019s house, even including testimony of a statement of the defendant that \u201che was running a whore-house in his back yard.\u201d\n5. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 14\u2014\nMotion to quash the warrant for duplicity is addressed to the discretion of the count when the motion is not made 'until after plea, since failure .to make the motion prior to plea waives the question of duplicity.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 33\u2014\nIn a .prosecution on a warrant charging a number of distinct erim&pal offenses in one court, the court is compelled to' permit the introducci\u00f3n of evidence which is competent and pertinent on any of the charges.1 \u2022'\n7. Indictment and Warrant \u00a7 8\u2014\nWhere a warrant charges a number of distinct criminal offenses in one count, defendant may in apt time move to quash on the ground of .duplicity, in which event the solicitor may either take a nol pros as to all hut one charge and proceed to trial thereon, or he may move for leave to amend the warrant and state in separate counts the charges upon which he desires to proceed, provided they are originally' set out in- the warrant. G.S. 18-10.\nAppeal by defendant from Gambill, J.. October 1958 Criminal Term of Forsyth..'\nDefendant .appealed from an .adverse judgment in the Municipal Court of the City of Winston-Salem and was tried de novo in the Superior Court upon a warrant charging the violation of the liquor laws. The State offered evidence tending /to show that \u00abthe defendant possessed illicit intoxicating liquor, possessed intoxicating liquor for the purpose of sale and sold intoxicating liquor. The defendant did not testify and offered no evidence -in his behalf. The jury returned-a.verdict of guilty.\nFrom-judgment of imprisonment defendant appealed, assigning error.\nSpry, White & Hamrick for defendant, appellant.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General McGal-liard for the State." }, "file_name": "0204-01", "first_page_order": 244, "last_page_order": 249 }