State v. Fields
| Citation | 183 S.E.2d 666,279 N.C. 460 |
| Decision Date | 13 October 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 31,31 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Adam FIELDS, Jr. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan, Asst. Atty. Gen. Isham B. Hudson, Jr., for the State.
Floyd & Floyd, Fairmont, for defendant appellant.
The evidence in this case was plenary to withstand defendant's motion for nonsuit and to sustain the verdict. However, the condition of the record, which the assistant solicitor 'accepted as a correct statement of case on appeal' the same day it was served upon him, leaves us no alternative except to order a new trial.
Defendant assigned as error the following portions of his Honor's charge, the error and prejudice of which are apparent:
'If you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the 28th of March, 1970, Adam Fields, Jr. intentionally shot and killed Kernis Lee Locklear, was natural and probable result of Adam Fields, Jr.'s act, but that Adam Fields, Jr. has satisfied you he was an aggressor after retreating as far as he could, killed Kernis Lee Locklear under such circumstances as reasonably arise in your minds was necessary in order to save himself from death or great bodily harm; that circumstances did create such belief in defendant's mind, and he did not use excessive force, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty; if you are not satisfied that he hadn't retreated as far as he safely could have.
'* * *.
'Furthermore, if you find Adam Fields, Jr. has failed to satisfy you he was the aggressor, but has satisfied you he had no murderous intent when he entered the fight, you would find him guilty of voluntary manslaughter.'
We are entirely convinced that Judge Collier did not utter the foregoing gibberish. However, it is axiomatic that the record which is certified to us imports verity, and we are bound by it. Rogers v. Rogers, 265 N.C. 386, 144 S.E.2d 48; 1 N.C. Index 2d, Appeal and Error § 42 (1967). Whether the initial responsibility for its presence in the case on appeal belongs to the court reporter we do not know. However, the final responsibility for this case on appeal rests with the solicitor, whose assistant accepted service and agreed to it 'as a correct statement.'
We are constrained to repeat the admonition to solicitors which we so recently gave in State v. Fox, 277 N.C. 1, 28--29, 175 S.E.2d 561, 578 (1970):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Robinson
...attorney, as officers of the court, have an equal duty to see that reporting errors in the transcript are corrected. State v. Fields, 279 N.C. 460, 183 S.E.2d 666 (1971). This duty does not, however, embrace the right to perpetuate and then take advantage of transcript mistakes. Id. In Sand......
-
State v. Baggett
...for second degree murder and no more. See, for example, State v. Richardson, 280 N.C. 178, 184 S.E.2d 841 (1971); State v. Fields, 279 N.C. 460, 183 S.E.2d 666 (1971); State v. White, 271 N.C. 391, 156 S.E.2d 721 (1967); State v. McLawhorn, 270 N.C. 622, 155 S.E.2d 198 (1967); State v. Moor......
-
State v. Hedrick
...ordinarily will not be considered since the record certified to the Court imports verity and we are bound by it. State v. Fields, 279 N.C. 460, 183 S.E.2d 666 (1971); 1 Strong, N.C.Index 2d, Appeal and Error, § 42. However, due to the gravity of the offense and the imposition of life impris......
-
State v. Dellinger
...and the court is bound on appeal by the record as certified. State v. Williams, 280 N.C. 132, 184 S.E.2d 875 (1971); State v. Fields, 279 N.C. 460, 183 S.E.2d 666 (1971). A careful review of the record on appeal and the transcript of the hearings before Judge Mills and Judge Johnson does no......