State v. Adams, 88

Decision Date04 February 1966
Docket NumberNo. 88,88
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE, v. Jack Lang ADAMS.

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Bernard A. Harrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

I. C. Crawford, Asheville, for defendant appellant.

HIGGINS, Justice.

Technically the indictment charged manslaughter. However, the court, by its clear and explicit instructions, limited the jury's consideration to the question of guilt of innocence of involuntary manslaughter. The evidence presented the issue whether the defendant was guilty of culpable negligence in the operation of his automobile on the wrong side of the road, at excessive speed, and while he was under the influence of liquor; and, if so, whether the negligence proximately caused Mrs. Parker's death. The jury returned a verdict of guilty. By limiting the verdict to involuntary manslaughter, the court withdrew voluntary manslaughter from the jury. The court's election to submit only one charge was equivalent to a verdict of not guilty on all other charges included in the bill. State v. Mundy, 243 N.C. 149, 90 S.E.2d 312; State v. Smith, 226 N.C. 738, 40 S.E.2d 363; State v. Whitley, 208 N.C. 661, 182 S.E. 338.

During the trial the defendant took numerous exceptions to the admission of evidence and to the court's charge. We have examined the assignments of error based on these exceptions. They fail to disclose error of material substance. In fact, up to and including the verdict, the trial was in accordance with procedural rules. However, after verdict, the court committed error in the imposition of punishment.

Prior to April 10, 1933, the prescribed punishment for manslaughter (G.S. § 14-18) was imprisonment for not less than four months nor more than 20 years. Effective on the above date, the General Assembly (by Ch. 249, Public Laws, Session 1933) amended the statute by adding: 'Provided, however, that in cases of involuntary manslaughter, the punishment shall be in the discretion of the court, and the defendant may be fined or imprisoned, or both.' '* * * (T)he proviso was intended and designed to mitigate the punishment in cases of involuntary manslaughter * * *.' State v. Dunn, 208 N.C. 333, 180 S.E. 708.

This Court, in State v. Blackmon, 260 N.C. 352, 132 S.E.2d 880, held that punishment 'in the discretion of the court' is not specific punishment and hence is governed by the limits (10 years for felonies and two years for misdemeanors) prescribed in G.S. §§ 14-2 and 14-3. In so holding, the Blackmon decision followed State v. Driver, 78 N.C. 423, and overruled State v. Swindell, 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417, and State v. Cain, 209 N.C. 275, 183 S.E. 300, both of which were based on the dictum of State v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148. In Rippy the punishment was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • State v. Gray
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 14 April 1977
    ...injury" theory of the crime in the indictment. See State v. Shields, 14 N.C.App. 650, 188 S.E.2d 641 (1972), cf. State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505 (1966); State v. Mundy, 243 N.C. 149, 90 S.E.2d 312 (1955). Where an indictment sets forth conjunctively two means by which the crime......
  • State v. Thomas
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 7 December 1989
    ...Criminal defendants are not convicted or acquitted of theories; they are convicted or acquitted of crimes. See, e.g., State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505 (1966); State v. Cobb, 250 N.C. 234, 108 S.E.2d 237 (1959); State v. Mundy, 243 N.C. 149, 90 S.E.2d 312 (1955); State v. Love, 2......
  • Atkins v. City of Charlotte, Civ. No. 2274.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of North Carolina
    • 25 February 1969
    ...3, supra. 5 See footnote 3, supra. 6 A misdemeanor punishable in the discretion of the court means a maximum of two years. State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505, N.C.G.S. ...
  • Ross v. Fed. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives, Civil No. PJM 10–3090.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 7 August 2012
    ...a court could impose for a misdemeanor was two years. State v. Woody, 271 N.C. 544, 157 S.E.2d 108, 111 (1967); State v. Adams, 266 N.C. 406, 146 S.E.2d 505, 506 (1966). Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), a “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” explicitly excludes “any ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT