State v. Beard

• Decision Date: 18 April 1899
• Citation: 32 S.E. 804,124 N.C. 811
• Parties: STATE v. BEARD et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

32 S.E. 804

124 N.C. 811

STATE v. BEARD et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

April 18, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Catawba county; Coble, Judge.

Henry Beard and another were convicted of an offense, and they appeal. Reversed.

Where the facts are not complicated, nor the evidence, it may be a sufficient summing up of the case for the court merely to read the notes of the evidence and charge the law in general terms.

E. B Cline and T. M. Hufham, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

FURCHES J.

This is an indictment for fornication and adultery, and both defendants were on trial. Verdict of guilty, and appeal.

Defendants' first exception is that the court only read the notes of the evidence, and charged the law in general terms. We do not understand from this exception that there is any complaint upon the ground that the charge contained erroneous propositions of law. Nor do we understand that there is any complaint alleging any error committed by the court in reading the notes of the evidence, but that the court did not sufficiently array and sum up the evidence in its charge to the jury; and the case of State v. Boyle, 104 N.C 800, 10 S.E. 696, 1023, is the principal authority relied on for this contention. The case of State v. Boyle has been so often criticised, explained, and overruled upon the point for which it is cited that it can no longer be considered as authority. The court in that case undertook to say how well a judge should succeed in aiding the jury to understand the evidence, and seems to have succeeded better in producing confusion than in establishing the rule of practice intended to be established. We do not wish to fall into this error again. It is true that the object of the charge is to state the law of the case to the jury, and to aid them in applying the facts to the law; but the manner in which this is done must be left, to a very great extent, to the good sense and sound judgment of the judge who tries the case. There are a few general principles that should be observed by court and counsel on the trial, whether civil or criminal. Prayers for instruction should be hypothetical, not too long, and not confused. The charge should consist in hypothetical propositions, where addressed to the jury; should consist of clear-cut propositions, as far as practicable; should not be too discursive,--as it is usually addressed to plain intelligent jurors,...