State v. Alverson, 659.

• Decision Date: 04 January 1939
• Docket Number: No. 659.,659.
• Citation: 214 N.C. 685,200 S.E. 410
• Parties: STATE. v. ALVERSON et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

214 N.C. 685

200 S.E. 410

STATE.

v.ALVERSON et al.

No. 659.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 4, 1939.

Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; N. A. Sinclair, Judge.

J. E. Alverson and Charlie Brack were convicted of breaking and entering a building with intent to steal property therein, larceny of such property, and receiving it with knowledge that it was stolen, and they appeal.

New trial.

McKinnon, Nance & Seawell, of Lumberton, for appellants.

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and Robert Wettach, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

SCHENCK, Justice.

The defendants were tried upon a bill of indictment charging them (1) with breaking and entering a pressing club building occupied by C. E. Locklear wherein valuable property was kept, with the intent to steal said property, (2) with the larceny of said property, and (3) with receiving said property knowing it to have been stolen. The jury returned a verdict as to both defendants of "guilty as charged." From judgment of imprisonment in the State's prison, the defendants appealed, assigning error.

The following excerpt from the charge of the Court is made the basis of an exceptive assignment of error: "There has been some character evidence offered in the case, gentlemen. You will consider character evidence along together with all the other evidence, part and parcel of it; character evidence has as much weight or as little weight as you find it entitled to, evidence admitted to help you weigh the credibility of the witnesses upon whose character it is offered, the law being that a person of good character being more apt to testify correctly than a person of bad character. However, in the final analysis it is for you to say what the facts are, taking character evidence along with all the other evidence, and then say as men of common sense and reason and experience what you honestly believe the truth to be. That is all you are doing, is seeking the truth."

We are constrained to hold the instruction that "the law being that a person of good character being more apt to testifycorrectly than a person of bad character" is error. While the jury should consider the character of witnesses when they come to weigh their testimony as a circumstance bearing upon its credibility, still we apprehend his Honor imposed a burden and cast a shadow upon the testimony of the defendants, who were witnesses in their own behalf and whose character had been impeached on cross-examination, which is not warranted...