{
  "id": 8575656,
  "name": "STATE v. CHESTER GODWIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Godwin",
  "decision_date": "1963-11-27",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "580",
  "last_page": "581",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "260 N.C. 580"
    }
  ],
  "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": "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": "84 S.E. 2d 880",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604964
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 636",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 N.C. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560764
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/259/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 S.E. 2d 175",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573532
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 S.E. 2d 465",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "256 N.C. 240",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572156
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/256/0240-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 278,
    "char_count": 3609,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.641,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.260766815067203e-08,
      "percentile": 0.33052274476233945
    },
    "sha256": "8a4352a95e68479267fd188d6c008f21f1cc2f3d7cd3c40027b2410e53fe18b4",
    "simhash": "1:925cdb221e53b4f8",
    "word_count": 623
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:49:29.885963+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CHESTER GODWIN."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nThe State offered plenary evidence to carry the case to the jury on the offense charged in the indictment.\nDefendant .offered evidence tending to show an \u00a1alibi. He assigns as error the court\u2019s charge on an alibi, which in effect placed the burden of proving an alibi on defendant. The assignment of error is good. S. v. Allison, 256 N.C. 240, 123 S.E. 2d 465; S. v. Spencer, 256 N.C. 487, 124 S.E. 2d 175; S. v. Walston, 259 N.C. 385, 130 S.E. 2d 636.\nDefendant assigns \u00a1as error the verdict as rendered, upon which the judgment is based, on the ground that the trial judge told them in effect what their verdict shall be. In S. v. Gatlin, 241 N.C. 175, 84 S.E. 2d 880, the Court quoted with approval from Edwards v. Motor Co., 235 N.C. 269, 69 S.E. 2d 550, ais follows: \u201c \u2018Where 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\u2019.\u201d The assignment of error is good. The Attorney General in his brief states:\n\u201cCertainly, it would have been proper for the judge to have re-instructed the jury at this time as to the proper possible verdicts \u25a0and directed the jury to retire for further consideration. However, in inquiring of the jury .as to whether the intended verdict was not that of .being guilty of the most serious offense charged, the judge created a situation which the State has difficulty in distinguishing from that in State v. Gatlin, supra, in which case the Court ordered a new trial.\u201d\nThe verdict .and judgment are vacated, and a new trial is ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.",
      "Levinson & Levinson and B. E. Batton by L. L. Levinson for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CHESTER GODWIN.\n(Filed 27 November 1963.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 106-\nAn has~ruction whieli, in effect, places the burden upon defendant to prove his defense ~f an alibi to prejudicIal error.\n2. Crhnina~L Law \u00a7 11G-\nThe jury returned as a verdict \"we de~ided be is guilty of an assault of this person,\" whereupon the court asked the jury if the count should understand that the jury found the defendant guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injuries not resulting `in death, as charged in the indictment. Held: It was prejudicial error for the trial court to intimate to the jury what their verdict should be.\nAPPIrAL by defenda~iiit from Burgwyr~, E. J., Augusth 1963 Se~siion. o~ JOHNSTON.\nCrirn\u00e2nal pa~oaeout\u00e1on upon an ind'brn~ `c~rg~og d'efendiaiit with ~n oaaault with `a deadly weapon upon Billy Ray Carter w'iTtlh intent to kill a~esu1rt~ing in cerious injury. G.S. 14~32.\nPlea: Not guilty.\nThe recoa~d dise1'oisei~ blie following in respect to the verdict:\n\"Upoai. ~the ~o~ni~nJg in o;f the verciliet, the Juiry ~ayt~: `We d~eeicLed tha~ he i~s guilty of an A~eau1t on thi~s peDson.'\n\"COURT: Do I understand tha~t `the Jua~y finds the Defendant guilty of an A~isau1t with a Deadly weapon, infiu'cthimg seadons injuries, not resulting in death, as charged in the Bill of Indietment? Do you mean to say that?\n\"JUROR: Yes, dr.\n\u201cCOURT: So say you all?\n\u201cJURY: Yes, six, we agree.\n\u201cCLERK: Do you, the Jury, find the Defendant guilty of Assault with a Deadly Weapon with Intent to Kill, inflicting serious injuries not resulting in dearth? Jury: Yes.\n\u201cCOURT: Guilty as \u2019charged in the Bill of Indictment?\n\u201cJURY: Yes.\u201d\nJudgment: \u201cLet the defendant be confined in the State prison for not lass than seven nor more than ten years.\u201d\nDefendant appeals.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.\nLevinson & Levinson and B. E. Batton by L. L. Levinson for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0580-01",
  "first_page_order": 620,
  "last_page_order": 621
}