State v. Humbles
| Decision Date | 03 November 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 291,291 |
| Citation | 241 N.C. 47,84 S.E.2d 264 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Ray HUMBLES. |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Albion Dunn and L. W. Gaylord, Jr., Greenville, for defendant, appellant.
At the November Term 1953 of Pitt County Superior Court, His Honor J. Paul Frizzelle presiding, the defendant was called for trial upon the indictment in the instant case; he pleaded Not Guilty, and a jury was properly impaneled. After the trial had proceeded at some length, and evidence had been offered by the State, Judge Frizzelle withdrew a juror, and ordered a mistrial. Judge Frizzelle found no facts. The defendant did not except. It is obvious that Judge Frizzelle ordered the mistrial in his discretion in order that the case of the defendant for assaulting Mrs. Gardner and the case of Wyatt Gardner and his wife for assaulting Ray Humbles might be tried together. When the defendant's case was called for trial at the April Term 1954, he entered a plea of former jeopardy and Not Guilty. The plea of former jeopardy was denied, and the defendant excepted, and assigns it as error.
The ordering of a mistrial in a case less than capital is a matter in the discretion of the judge, and the judge need not find facts constituting the reason for such order. State v. Dove, 222 N.C. 162, 22 S.E.2d 231; State v. Guice, 201 N.C. 761, 161 S.E 533; State v. Upton, 170 N.C. 769, 87 S.E. 328; State v. Andrews, 166 N.C. 349, 81 S.E. 416; State v. Bass, 82 N.C. 570; State v. Johnson, 75 N.C. 123. The judge's action is not reviewable--a position undoubtedly sound, unless under circumstances establishing gross abuse; a case not presented by this Record. State v. Guice, supra; State v. Andrews, supra; State v. Bass, supra.
In capital cases only is the judge required to find the facts and place them on record, so that if a plea of former jeopardy is entered, the action of the court may be reviewed; a practice based on the innate sense of justice of the common law--no man shall be twice put in jeopardy of life and limb. The word 'limb' having reference to the barbarous punishment, which has now become obsolete, of striking off the hand. Coke Litt., 227; 3 Inst. 110; State v. Crocker, 239 N.C. 446, 80 S.E.2d 243; State v. Dove, supra; State v. Guice, supra; State v. Tyson, 138 N.C. 627, 50 S.E. 456; State v. Sheppard Johnson, supra.
The defendant's assignment of error to the denial of his plea of former jeopardy is overruled.
The defendant assigns as error No. 2 that the trial judge by the questions he asked the defendant, when he was testifying in the case, conveyed to the jury the impression that the defendant was not worthy of belief, especially as he asked Mrs. Gardner only two questions and her husband none. The judge on four occasions asked questions of the defendant. First, the defendant had said Wyatt Gardner and his wife had not asked him to take the fence down around this three-acre piece of land; he did not know there was a controversy about the land when he put the fence up. Mrs. Gardner had previously testified as to a controversy about this land between her husband, herself and defendant before the fence was erected. The judge asked the defendant: The defendant did not object. Second, after more testimony by the defendant he said he did not deliberately aim at Mrs. Gardner with his tractor and run over her; that he didn't go any where near her with the tractor; doesn't know how she got on his (her husband's) tractor. At this place the judge asked defendant these questions:
'Q. Where was she the last time you saw her? A. She was at the path; he was turning the tractor around getting her up.
'Q. What position was she in? A. I couldn't say.
'Q. What do you mean
The defendant objected and excepted to these questions. These questions refer to Wyatt Gardner carrying his wife out of the field on a tractor he had procured from his home, after his wife had sustained a fractured knee. The judge asked the defendant the questions on these two occasions when the defendant was being cross-examined by S. O. Worthington, attorney. for the Gardners. Third, when the defendant was being re-examined by his attorney, he testified he had leased this land in 1949. Whereupon the judge asked this question: ' The defendant made no objection. There was re-crossexamination by S. O. Worthington, and then defendant's lawyer examined him again. Fourth, the defendant then said he leased the land from Mrs. N. O. Gardner. Whereupon the judge asked this question:
On direct examination Mrs. Gardner said: 'After I knocked down all the posts he (the defendant) got off his tractor after he drove up to where I was and said: 'What are you tearing down my fence for?' ' The judge then asked Mrs. Gardner: 'Where were you then?' Later on Mrs. Gardner testified that after her knee was fractured and the fighting was over, her husband helped get her to the path, and she told him put me down, I am about to faint. Then the judge asked: 'Q. Did he hear what you told your husband? A. Yes Sir. Q. What did you tell him? A. I said: 'Honey, hurry to the house and get the tractor; I am about to faint.''
In our opinion, and we so hold, the questions asked by the judge and the evidence brought out could not have created in the minds of the jury the impression that in the judge's opinion the defendant was unworthy of belief. The questions did not impeach him. We do not see how it could have affected the jury's verdict. Prejudicial error is not made to appear. State v. Perry, 231 N.C. 467, 57 S.E.2d 774. Assignment of error No. 2 is overruled.
On cross-examination of Wyatt Gardner by defendant's counsel, he asked this question: ' ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Foster
...than capital rests largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Hines, 266 N.C. 1, 145 S.E.2d 363 (1965); State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264 (1954). The judge's action is not reviewable except under circumstances establishing gross abuse--a circumstance not shown by this......
-
State v. Birckhead
...must be sufficient to warrant the exercise of this discretionary authority. State v. Tyson, supra.' The Court stated in State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264, that 'In misdemeanors, and all cases of felonies not capital, the court below has the discretion to order a mistrial and disc......
-
State v. Hough
...to repeat such phrases throughout the charge in restating the evidence and in stating the contentions of the parties. State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264 (1954). Third, defendant asserts that the trial judge expressed an opinion in saying to the jury that the doctor's examination w......
-
State v. Robbins, 3
...similar testimony himself. State v. Jarrett, 271 N.C. 576, 157 S.E.2d 4; State v. Adams, 245 N.C. 344, 95 S.E.2d 902; State v. Humbles, 241 N.C. 47, 84 S.E.2d 264. This assignment of error is The trial court's charge to the jury is challenged because of the failure of the court to define th......