State v. Laughinghouse
| Decision Date | 06 February 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 783SC915,783SC915 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Donald LAUGHINGHOUSE. |
Beaman, Kellum, Mills & Kafer by David P. Voerman, New Bern, for defendant-appellant.
There is no merit in defendant's contention that he was entitled to a judgment as of nonsuit. The evidence, considered as it must be in the light most favorable to the State, see generally 4 Strong's N.C.Index 3d, Criminal Law § 104, is clearly sufficient to establish each essential element of the offense and to support a conviction. Nonsuit was properly denied. Id. § 106.
Defendant next contends that he was prejudiced by a violation of G.S. 15A-1213. That statute, entitled "Informing prospective jurors of case," instructs the judge to briefly inform prospective jurors about the case, and concludes: "The judge may not read the pleadings to the jury." In the case Sub judice the trial court read a portion of the indictment to the jury as part of his charge to them after the close of the evidence.
Now this is the case of the State of North Carolina vs. Donald Laughinghouse, a criminal proceeding wherein the (defendant stands charged in the bill of indictment that "on or about the 12th day of December, 1977, in Craven County, that he, Donald Laughinghouse unlawfully and wilfully did feloniously receive one 23 Channel radio and one microwave oven, the personal property of Joyce French Howell, having a value of Six Hundred ($600.00) dollars, knowing that the property to have been feloniously taken, stolen or carried away.")
Why the legislature would specify that "the judge may not read the pleadings to the jury" is not clear. The purpose of the statute, when read as a whole and considered together with the Official Commentary, apparently is to avoid giving jurors "a distorted view of the case" through the "stilted language of indictments." Official Commentary to G.S. 15A-1221, referring also to G.S. 15A-1213. Since finding a violation of the statute here would in no way serve that purpose we find no such violation. The jurors had heard all of the evidence, and to infer that they would be given a distorted view of the case by a mere reiteration of the charge couched in the words of the indictment would be illogical.
Defendant next argues that the charge to the jury was improper because the judge failed to instruct the jury that the receiving of stolen property must be with "felonious intent." This Court has already recognized that there are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long, 8113SC1096
...824, disc. review denied, 301 N.C. 102, 273 S.E.2d 306 (1980), 450 U.S. 915, 101 S.Ct. 1356, 67 L.Ed.2d 339 (1981); State v. Laughinghouse, 39 N.C.App. 655, 251 S.E.2d 667, cert. denied, 297 N.C. 615, 257 S.E.2d 438 (1979). The court's statement of the charges here was sufficient for that p......
-
State v. Shelton
...giving jurors a distorted view of the case through a reading of the stilted language contained in the indictments. State v. Laughinghouse, 39 N.C.App. 655, 251 S.E.2d 667, cert. denied, 297 N.C. 615, 257 S.E.2d 438 (1979). In State v. McNeil, 47 N.C.App. 30, 266 S.E.2d 824, cert. denied, 30......
-
State v. Elkerson
...statute is to avoid giving jurors a distorted view of a case because of the stilted language of most indictments. State v. Laughinghouse, 39 N.C.App. 655, 251 S.E.2d 667 (1979). It is presumed that the trial judge obeyed the mandate of G.S. 15A-1213, and there is nothing in the record to th......
-
State v. Hill
...is to avoid giving jurors 'a distorted view of the case' through the 'stilted language of indictments.' " State v. Laughinghouse, 39 N.C.App. 655, 657, 251 S.E.2d 667, 668, Appeal dismissed, 297 N.C. 615, 257 S.E.2d 438 In Laughinghouse, supra, the trial court had read a portion of the indi......