State v. Sanders, 496A82
| Decision Date | 06 November 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 496A82,496A82 |
| Citation | 312 N.C. 318,321 S.E.2d 836 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Stanley SANDERS. |
Rufus L. Edmisten, Atty. Gen. by Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Sp. Deputy Atty. Gen., Elizabeth C. Bunting, Asst. Atty. Gen., Raleigh, for the State.
Adam Stein, Appellate Defender by Ann B. Petersen and James R. Glover, Asst Appellate Defenders, Chapel Hill, for defendant.
The defendant in this appeal presents fifteen questions for review arising out of the guilt and the penalty phases of his trial. Among these questions are serious challenges to the adequacy and accuracy of Judge Thornburg's instructions to the jury in the penalty phase of the defendant's trial on the aggravating circumstances, mitigating circumstances and other elements that the jury must find before it can sentence the defendant to death.
In support of his contentions, defendant has reproduced specific portions of the trial judge's instructions to the jury during the penalty phase of the trial. The portions of the jury instructions before us contain a strikingly large number of incomplete sentences, unintelligible phrases and words so misspelled as to cast doubt upon their meaning. Even by correcting grammatical errors and accounting for what might conceivably have resulted from mere lapsus linguae on the part of the trial judge, we are unable to make any reasonable sense of the challenged instructions. Given the nature of these problems, we are entirely convinced that the confusing instruction is not attributable to the able trial judge, but was erroneously transcribed by the court reporter. Indeed, both the State and the defendant concede that "the transcription of the entire trial appears to be incomplete and, at places, simply inaccurate", and that "it is impossible to determine what was a transcription error and what was actually said."
We have repeatedly stated that the record which is certified imports verity, and we are bound by it. State v. Johnson, 295 N.C. 227, 244 S.E.2d 391 (1978); State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 184 S.E.2d 875 (1971); State v. Fields, 279 N.C. 460, 183 S.E.2d 666 (1971). Appellate counsel for the State and for the defendant have diligently attempted to provide us with the best possible record under the circumstances. We are informed that it is unlikely that the record on appeal can be improved from the existing records of the original court reporter who no longer resides within the state. We are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McLaughlin
...his view, its condition is such that it precludes meaningful appellate review. Defendant mistakenly relies upon State v. Sanders, 312 N.C. 318, 321 S.E.2d 836 (1984) (per curiam), which involved a transcript so incomplete and inaccurate that one could not distinguish between transcript erro......
-
State v. Sanders, 88A85
...of these trial proceedings required this Court to vacate the convictions and remand for a new trial. State v. Sanders, 312 N.C. 318, 321 S.E.2d 836 (1984) (per curiam).3 The acquaintance offered corroborating testimony for the State. A firearms expert testified that this gun was of the same......
-
Stann v. Levine
...584-86, 467 S.E.2d 28, 31-32 (1996); State v. Williams, 317 N.C. 474, 483, 346 S.E.2d 405, 411 (1986); State v. Sanders, 312 N.C. 318, 320, 321 S.E.2d 836, 837 (1984) (per curiam). 5. See, e.g., State v. Poplin, 304 N.C. 185, 187, 282 S.E.2d 420, 421 (1981); State v. Cohen, 301 N.C. 220, 22......
-
State v. Hammonds
...review by this Court. Any inaccuracies or omissions do not rise to the level found by the Supreme Court in State v. Sanders, 312 N.C. 318, 320, 321 S.E.2d 836, 837 (1984) (granting new trial where meaningful appellate review was precluded by "the entirely inaccurate and inadequate transcrip......