State v. Best
Decision Date | 28 January 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 137,137 |
Citation | 186 S.E.2d 1,280 N.C. 413 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. David Earl BEST. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Deputy Atty. Gen. Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.
J. Troy Smith, Jr., Ward, Tucker, Ward & Smith, New Bern, for defendant appellant.
Defendant first assigns as error the denial of his motion to prevent private counsel from appearing to aid the solicitor in prosecuting the case. Defendant concedes that the practice of allowing private prosecution is deeply rooted in North Carolina practice. However, he urges that with the enactment of Article 9 of Section 7A of the General Statutes, effective January 1, 1971, the role of the solicitor has changed from that of an advocate to an impartial officer of the court who is concerned with obtaining justice.
G.S. § 7A--61 provides that the solicitor shall prosecute in the name of the State all criminal actions requiring prosecution in the superior and district courts of his district and shall devote his full time to the duties of his office and shall not engage in the private practice of law. G.S. § 7A--63 provides for the appointment of assistant solicitors on a full-time basis, and G.S. § 7A--64 provides for temporary assistance to the solicitors when the dockets are overcrowded by the assignment of an assistant solicitor from another district, or by the temporary appointment of a qualified attorney to assist the solicitor. Article 9 of Section 7A of the General Statutes made the office of solicitor a full-time job and spelled out the duties of that office. It also provided for permanent and temporary assistance for the solicitor in preparing and prosecuting cases. It did not, however, contrary to defendant's contention, change the role of the solicitor in criminal cases or prohibit the practice of employing private counsel to assist the solicitor.
This Court, in State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E.2d 572 (1971), recognized the practice of employing private counsel to assist in prosecuting criminal cases and stated the proper role of the solicitor or privately employed counsel as follows:
(Emphasis added.)
The discretion vested in the trial judge to permit private counsel to appear with the solicitor has existed in our courts from their incipiency. State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E.2d 594 (1943); State v. Carden, 209 N.C. 404, 183 S.E. 898 (1936), cert. den. 298 U.S. 682, 56 S.Ct. 960, 80 L.Ed. 1402 (1936); State v. Lea, 203 N.C. 13, 164 S.E. 737 (1932). It should also be noted that when these three cases were decided, the solicitor was directed by the statute then in force 'to prosecute on behalf of the state in all criminal actions in the superior courts.' See N.C. Code of 1931 § 1431; N.C.Code of 1935 § 1431; N.C.Code of 1939 § 1431.
In State v. Carden, supra, Justice Clarkson quoted with approval from 22 R.C.L. (Prosecuting Attorneys), p. 93:
In the present case, the solicitor consented to the employment of private counsel. The solicitor continued in charge of the prosecution. He announced in open court that he would seek a conviction of rape but that he would not ask for the death penalty, and the solicitor examined all the State's witnesses with the exception of one. Under these circumstances, the appearance of private counsel for the prosecution was a matter under the control and in the sound discretion of the presiding judge. No abuse of discretion appears, and this assignment is overruled.
At the beginning of the trial the court excused the jury to conduct a Voir dire. Shortly after the jury returned, the jury was again excused for a similar reason. At that time the judge stated: Defendant contends that this comment by the judge tends to reflect an opinion of the judge that the defendant's position was unsound and not actually worthy of the inconvenience being imposed upon the jury by the necessity of having to leave the courtroom.
The duty of absolute impartiality is imposed on the trial judge by G.S. § 1--180. Galloway v. Lawrence, 266 N.C. 245, 145 S.E.2d 861 (1966).
In State v. Carter, 233 N.C. 581, 65 S.E.2d 9 (1951), it is stated:
* * *
* * *
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Atkins
...240 Miss. 647, 123 So.2d 429, 124 So.2d 297, 129 So.2d 127 (1960); Baca v. Padilla, 26 N.M. 223, 190 P. 730 (1920); State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1 (1972); State v. Kent, 4 N.D. 577, 62 N.W. 631 (1895); Lopez v. State, 437 S.W.2d 268 (Tex.Cr.App.1968); Contra, State v. Harrington,......
-
State v. Branch, 1
...judge in North Carolina may permit private counsel to appear with the solicitor to aid in the prosecution of a case. State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1 (1972); State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E.2d 572 However, the defendant contends that the use of a private prosecutor in this......
-
State v. Britt
...should not be, neutral. He is not the judge, but the advocate of the State's interest in the matter at hand.' See also State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1 (1972). In instant case, the prosecutor was acting as the advocate of the State's interest. was, at all times, seeking to convict ......
-
State v. Ramey, 105A86
...impeached. State v. Martin, 309 N.C. 465, 308 S.E.2d 277 (1983); State v. Perry, 298 N.C. 502, 259 S.E.2d 496 (1979); State v. Best, 280 N.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 1 (1972). However, the prior statement must in fact corroborate the witness' testimony. State v. Martin, 309 N.C. 465, 308 S.E.2d 277......
-
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION IN AMERICAN HISTORY: PRIVATE OR PUBLIC?
...that a crime victim has no authority to do so."). (535.) Goldsby v. Mississippi, 123 So. 2d 429, 437 (Miss. 1960); North Carolina v. Best, 186 S.E.2d 1,4(N.C. 1972); Missouri v. Harrington, 534 S.W.2d 44,52 (Mo. 1976). See also John A.J. Ward, Private Prosecution: The Entrenched Anomaly, 50......