State v. Frazier, 78

• Decision Date: 08 March 1961
• Docket Number: No. 78,78
• Citation: 254 N.C. 226,118 S.E.2d 556
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE, v. Lincoln FRAZIER.

Page 556

118 S.E.2d 556

254 N.C. 226

STATE, v. Lincoln FRAZIER.

No. 78

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 1961

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., for the State.

Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., New Bern, for defendant-appellant.

PARKER, Justice.

The evidence and the findings of fact show that Lincoln Frazier is a fifteen-year-old boy residing in Craven County, and is delinquent within the intent and meaning of G.S. § 110-21. The Juvenile Court of Craven County had jurisdiction over him by virtue of the provisions of the same statute.

Defendant assigns as error the ruling of Judge Morris that no issues of fact arise on the appeal to be submitted to a jury. This assignment of error is without merit.

The various training schools in North Carolina established by Chapter 134 of the General Statutes were created by the General Assembly for the training and moral and industrial development of the criminally delinquent children of the State. The purpose of establishing the training schools is not criminal or penal, but to meet, in some measure, the duty imposed upon society, for its own protection, and for the good of the child.

This Court said in In re Watson, 157 N.C. 340, 72 S.E. 1049, 1053: 'The question as to the extent to which a child's constitutional rights are impaired by a restraint upon its freedom has arisen many times with reference to statutes authorizing the commitment of dependent, incorrigible, or delinquent children to the custody of some institution, and the decisions appear to warrant the statement as a general rule that, where the investigation is into the status and needs of the child, and the institution to which he or she is committed is not of a penal character, such investigation is not one to which the constitutional guaranty of a right to trial by jury extends, nor does the restraint put upon the child amount to a deprivation of liberty within the meaning of the Declaration of Rights, nor is it a punishment for crime.'

This Court also said in State v. Burnett, 179 N.C. 735, 102 S.E. 711, 714: 'To the objections frequently raised that these statutes ignore or unlawfully withhold the right to trial by jury, these and other authorities well make answer that such legislation deals, and purports to deal, with delinquent children not as criminals, but as wards, and undertakes rather to give them the control and environment that may lead to their reformation, and enable them to become law-abiding and useful citizens, a support and not a hindrance to the commonwealth.'

Our cases are in accord with the view generally taken by Courts in other jurisdictions. 31 Am.Jur., Juvenile Courts, etc., § 67; 50 C.J.S. Juries § 80; Annotation, 67 A.L.R. 1082.

The only exception appearing in the record is the one discussed above. Defendant did not except to the judgment of Judge Morris but appealed to the Supreme Court. The appeal to this Court is an exception to the judgment, Bennett v. Attorney General, 245 N.C. 312, 96 S.E.2d 46, and presents only the face of the record for review and inspection, King v. Rudd, 226 N.C. 156, 37 S.E.2d 116; Sprinkle v. City of Reidsville, 235 N.C. 140, 69 S.E.2d 179.

G.S. § 110-24 provides: 'The court shall maintain a full and complete record of all cases brought before it, to be known as the juvenile record.' Defendant contends that there is a fatal defect in the record because the petition by the Welfare Department was not produced at the hearing before Judge Morris. The record clearly shows that such a petition was filed with the Juvenile Court. The...