State v. Craig

• Decision Date: 20 November 1918
• Docket Number: 345.
• Citation: 97 S.E. 400,176 N.C. 740
• Parties: STATE v. CRAIG.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

97 S.E. 400

176 N.C. 740

STATE v. CRAIG.

No. 345.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 20, 1918

Appeal from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Shaw, Judge.

George W. Craig was acquitted of the crime of resisting an officer and his release being denied, he appeals. Reversed.

When particular and specific words or acts, the subject of a statute, are followed by general words, the latter must as a rule be confined to acts and things of the same kind.

The case on appeal states that the jury returned into open court and announced their verdict of "not guilty." Thereupon his honor inquired whether the verdict was upon the ground that the defendant did not have mental capacity to commit a crime at the date of the alleged crime, and the foreman of the jury answered, "Yes." His honor then had the following entries made: "Verdict, not guilty upon the ground that he had not sufficient mental capacity to commit a crime." Defendant's counsel thereupon moved for his discharge. Some days thereafter and on the last day of the term, his honor announced that he would set aside the verdict rendered by the jury in the case, to which order defendant excepted. His honor then held defendant to bail for his appearance at the next term of the criminal court of Rockingham county, and defendant excepted. The court then set aside verdict and required defendant to give an appearance bond of $50, and defendant excepted. His honor further made and signed the following order:

"In this case, it appearing that the jury rendered a verdict of not guilty upon the ground that the defendant at the time of the offense did not have sufficient mental capacity to commit a crime, it is ordered that the clerk of the superior court of Rockingham county, upon due notice to the defendant, make inquiry as to the present mental condition of the defendant and make due report in writing to the next criminal term of this court, reporting also in writing the testimony taken in such inquisition."

Defendant excepted and appealed to Supreme Court.

H. R Scott and P. W. Glidewell, both of Reidsville, and W. M Hendren, of Winston-Salem, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

HOKE J.

When a citizen is put on trial for a crime, and a jury, properly sworn and impaneled, have rendered a verdict of "not guilty" or verdict which, by fair intendment, has that significance, the defendant is entitled to have the same received and recorded as rendered, and, as a rule, it must be acted upon according to its true intent and meaning. In this jurisdiction, it may not be questioned by appeal, nor can it be set aside or materially altered by the trial judge, to defendant's prejudice, nor by the jury itself after the same has been finally received and recorded. State v. Whisenant, 149 N.C. 515, 63 S.E. 91; State v. Savery, 126 N.C. 1083, 36 S.E. 22, 49 L. R. A. 585; State v. Arrington, 7 N. C. 571; Clark's Criminal Procedure, p. 485; Chitty's Criminal Law, p. 657; 12 Cyc. p. 701.

In State v. Whisenant, supra, the principle applicable is stated as follows:

"The verdict then, as stated, amounted, by fair intendment, to a verdict of not guilty. As said in Clark's Criminal Procedure, p. 486: 'A verdict is not bad for informality or clerical errors in the language of it, if it is such that it can be clearly seen what is intended. It is to have a reasonable intendment, and is to receive a reasonable construction, and must not be avoided except from necessity.' 'This being a correct interpretation of the verdict as rendered by the jury, it was not within the province or power of the court, after they were discharged, to amend or alter their deliverance, in a matter of substance, to defendant's prejudice.' Clark, 487. And our own decisions on both propositions cited from Clark are in substantial accord with the author. State v. Arrington, 7 N. C. 571. In this case it was held, among other things, 'That wherever a prisoner, either in terms or effect, is acquitted by the jury, the verdict as returned should be recorded.' And Chief Justice Taylor, in a concurring opinion, speaking to this question, said: 'Some of the harsh rules of the common law in relation to criminal trials have been gradually softened by the improved spirit of the times; and this, among others, is relaxed in modern practice, where the jury bring in a verdict of acquittal. It is considered as bearing too hard on the prisoner, and is seldom practiced. Hawk. c. 47, §§ 11, 12. I think this course of proceeding is fit to be imitated here, whenever a prisoner, either in terms or effect, is acquitted by the jury, and that in all such cases the verdict should be recorded; although I am persuaded that they were desired to reconsider their verdict in this case, with the purest intention, and solely with a view that they might correct the mistake they had committed. The verdict first returned ought to have been recorded; and it ought to be done now. "Valeat quantum valere potest." The effect will be the same as if a verdict of acquittal were recorded; but I think it most regular to put upon the record what the jury have found.' "

The only exception recognized in this jurisdiction is that of fraud in the trial and procuring of the verdict on the part of the defendant or those acting for him and to an extent that makes it manifest that, in fact and truth, there has been no real trial and defendant was not in jeopardy by reason of it. State v. Cale, 150 N.C. 805-809, 63 S.E. 958, 134 Am. St. Rep....