State v. Hill, 293.

• Decision Date: 11 December 1935
• Docket Number: No. 293.,293.
• Citation: 209 N.c. 53,182 S.E. 716
• Parties: STATE. v. HILL et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

182 S.E. 716

209 N.c. 53

STATE.

v.HILL et al.

No. 293.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 11, 1935.

Appeal from Superior Court, Cleveland County; Sink, Judge.

Clyde Hill pleaded guilty to charge of housebreaking, larceny, and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been feloniously stolen, and C. C. Christopher was found guilty of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen, and, from a judgment, defendant C C. Christopher appeals.

Error, and cause remanded, with directions.

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendants with housebreaking, larceny, and receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been feloniously stolen or taken.

The record shows the following entry: "The defendant Clyde Hill pleaded 'Guilty' to the charge and was sentenced to five years in the State Penitentiary. He was not represented by counsel. The defendant C. C. Christopher pleaded 'Not guilty' to the charges preferred against him, but was found guilty by the trial judge, without a jury, of receiving stolen goods knowing them to have been stolen."

From a judgment of twenty months on the roads, the defendant C. C. Christopher appeals, assigning errors.

P. C. Gardner, of Shelby, and T. J. Moss, of Forest City, for appellant.

A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

STACY, Chief Justice.

It has been the uniform holding with us that, when a defendant in a criminal prosecution, on trial in the superior court, enters a plea of "not guilty" to the charge preferred against him, he may not thereafter, without changing his plea, waive his constitutional right of trial by jury. State v. Hartsfield, 188 N.C. 357, 124 S.E. 629; State v. Rogers, 162 N.C. 656, 78 S.E. 293, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 38, Ann. Cas. 1914A, 867. And this applies to misdemeanors as well as to felonies. State v. Pulliam, 184 N.C. 681, 114 S.E. 394.

True, special verdicts are permissible in criminal cases, but, when such procedure is had, all the essential facts must be found by a jury. State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 265, 80 S.E. 1075. They may not be referred to the judge for decision even by the consent of the accused or his coun sel. State v. Holt, 90 N.C. 749, 47 Am.Rep. 544; State v. Stewart, 89 N.C. 563. The parties are not permitted to change the policy of the law and substitute a new. method of trial in criminal prosecutions for that of trial by jury as provided by the Constitution: "No person shall be convicted of any crime but by the unanimous...