State v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 21 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 650. |
| Citation | 42 S.E.2d 617,227 N.C. 449 |
| Parties | STATE v. Godwin. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecutions on three separate warrants charging the defendant in each with the sale of non-tax-paid-whiskey, consolidated and tried together.
Ralph Lamb, an employee of the State A B C Board, testified that on Sunday morning, 31 March, 1946, he went to the home of the defendant to buy some whiskey. The defendant at first declined to sell him any, she was afraid of him, didn't know him, but said she would give him a drink. The witness replied that he had a drink (he had about an inch of A B C whiskey in a bottle), but wanted some to take along with him. The defendant agreed to swap drinks with him, which she did. The witness took a swallow of the whiseky, and after much importuning, the defendant said: . The witness gave her $2 and took the whiskey.
Thereafter on 19 April, the witness and another, Mr. Lamb, who was working with him, went to the home of the defendant to buy some whiskey. The defendant first said she was afraid, and the witness replied: "That is exactly what we are going to do, arrest you as soon as you sell us whiskey". Whe then sold the witness a pint and his comrade paid her $3 for it.
Still again, on Sunday morning, 5 May, the witness and Mr. Pete Lamb went to the home of the defendant and got a pint of "stump hole non-tax-liquor", paid for it and left.
On cross-examination, the witness said that on the first occasion there was a swapping of drinks. .
Speaking of the second occasion, he says: .
On the second occasion another girl was there and they were mopping the floor. "The third time we only saw Mrs Godwin".
The defendant offered no evidence.
The following instruction s were given to the jury:
1. In respect to the first charge, "The court instructs you that if you find the facts to be true as testified to by the State's witness and beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty in that case". Exception.
2. In respect to the second charge, "The court instructs you that if you find the facts to be true as shown by all the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt, it will be your duty to return a verdict of guilty in that case". Exception.
3. In respect to the third charge, . Exception.
Verdict: Guilty as charged in all three cases.
Judgments: In the first case, 12 months in the Woman's Division of the State's Prison; in the second case, 12 months in the woman's Division of the State's Prison to run concurrently with the sentence in the first case; in the third case, 12 months in the Woman's Division of the State's Prison to begin at the expiration of the sentences in the first and second cases. The sentence in the third case to be suspended for two years on conditions, good behavior, etc.
The defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Harry M. McMullan Atty. Gen., and T.W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Henry L. Anderson and James R. Nance, both of Fayetteville, for defendant.
The validity of the trial, and not the guilt or innocence of the accused, is the question presently to be considered.
The peremptory character of the court's instructions certainly those in the first two cases, would seem to be in excess of approved practice, where, as here, there is no admission or presumption calling for explanation or reply on the part of the defendant. State v. Estes, 185 N.C. 752, 117 S.E. 581; State v. Singleton, 183 N.C. 738, 110 S.E. 846; State v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311. It is only in rare instances that a verdict may be directed for the State in a criminal prosecution. State v. Ellis, 210 N.C. 166, 185 S.E. 663. "The plea of not guilty disputes the credibility of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial