State v. Charles
| Decision Date | 20 December 1912 |
| Citation | 76 S.E. 715,161 N.C. 286 |
| Parties | STATE v. CHARLES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County.
Henry Charles appealed from a conviction. His appeal was dismissed and he moves to reinstate it. Motion denied.
Defendant's appeal, dismissed for failure to file an appeal bond, to print the record, and to assign errors, will not be reinstated, his failure to print being due to his laches in not depositing the cost with the clerk of the Supreme Court though he seasonably filed the bond in the lower court; and its failure to reach the appellate court was due to the clerk of the lower court mailing it with insufficient postage.
J. H Folger, of Mt. Airy, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This is a motion to reinstate the case, which was dismissed November 7, 1912, at this term, on motion of the Attorney General, for failure to file an appeal bond, or to print the record, or to assign errors. Counsel of defendant base the motion to reinstate the appeal upon the ground that the appeal bond was filed with the clerk of the superior court on November 2, 1912, and was mailed to the clerk of this court at once, but failed to reach him, and was returned to the clerk who mailed it, for the lack of sufficient postage. It was thereupon mailed again, but was received by the clerk of this court too late, as the case had been dismissed. Defendant says that he did not print the record, for that he was relying on the clerk of this court to do so, as he had filed a bond, or supposed it had been filed here. But this is not a sufficient excuse. If the clerk of the superior court had failed inadvertently to stamp his letter to the clerk of this court, it might furnish some ground for indulgence to the appellant; but, as to the failure to print the record, the invariable rule and practice of the clerk's office here is to require a sufficient deposit to cover the cost of printing, and this is a wise rule; for if the appellant succeeds in this court the clerk would practically have no recourse against any one for the cash advanced by him for the printing of the record. It is our opinion, therefore, that the defendant, not his counsel, was guilty of laches in failing to print the record, and for this reason, and because no errors are assigned, we deny the motion to reinstate.
But we have, nevertheless, most carefully examined the case on appeal and the record, and find no error therein. The only question which should be considered is the one raised by the exception to the judge's instruction that the jury must be fully satisfied of defendant's guilt before they can convict him, and if they are not fully satisfied that he sold the liquor to David Wilson, as charged in the indictment they should acquit him. The defendant's counsel contend that this charge deprived defendant of the benefit of the doctrine of reasonable doubt. We do not think so. In explaining to the jury the rule as to a reasonable doubt and the correlative one as to the presumption of innocence, no particular or set form of words is prescribed by the law for the use of the judge. It was said, in State v. Parker, 61 N.C. at page 477: "All that the law requires is that the jury shall be clearly instructed that, unless, after due consideration of all the evidence, they are 'fully satisfied,' or 'entirely convinced,' or 'satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt,' of the guilt of the prisoner, it is their duty to acquit; and every attempt on the part of the courts to lay down a 'formula' for the instruction of the jury, by which to 'gauge' the degrees of conviction, has resulted...
To continue reading
Request your trial