State v. Logner
| Decision Date | 01 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 741,741 |
| Citation | 269 N.C. 550,153 S.E.2d 63 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Louis Anthony LOGNER, Defendant. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
Wade H. Penny, Jr., Durham, for defendant appellant.
Defendant assigns as error the admission, over his objections, of the officers' testimony as to incriminating statements made by defendant.
According to the State's evidence, defendant, after his arrest on November 18, 1964, and while in the custody of Detectives Morris and Hatley, made incriminating statements relating both to the safe of McCracken Oil Company of Oxford, N.C., and to the safe of George Johnson. Defendant was tried at July 28, 1965 Special Criminal Session of Durham upon an indictment charging safecracking and safe robbery in connection with the McCracken Oil Company safe. He was found guilty as charged and Judge Bickett, who presided at the trial, pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence. Upon defendant's appeal, this Court found 'no error.' State v. Logner, 266 N.C. 238, 145 S.E.2d 867.
The record on appeal in said prior prosecution, as appears from the preliminary statement and opinion of Sharp, J., shows that, in said trial before Judge Bickett, the testimony of Morris and Hatley was substantially the same as their testimony in the present case as to the conditions and circumstances under which defendant made the statements attributed to him; that defendant objected to their testimony on substantially the same grounds asserted herein; and that Judge Bickett, based on findings of fact made by him, overruled defendant's objections and admitted the testimony in evidence. This Court held the evidence presented at the Voir dire hearing was sufficient to support Judge Bickett's findings and rulings. It has come to our attention that, in a Habeas corpus proceeding in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, District Judge Gordon, after conducting a plenary hearing, reached the opposite conclusion and ordered the discharge of defendant unless the State retried him within six months. Logner v. State of North Carolina, D.C., 260 F.Supp. 970. While we regret this conflict, we adhere to the views expressed by Sharp, J., in State v. Logner, supra, and for the reasons there stated we approve Judge Burgwyn's findings and rulings.
However, for reasons stated below, we are constrained to hold defendant is entitled to a new trial.
Defendant contends, based on sufficient exceptions and assignments of error, that the court did not declare and explain the law as to the elements of the criminal offenses charged in the bill of indictment. The judge instructed the jury in substance as follows: After reading the material portions of each count in the bill of indictment, proper instructions were given as to the presumption of innocence and as to the State's burden to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court gave instructions as to the applicable law in determining the weight, if any, to be given the testimony relating to statements attributed to defendant. The court then reviewed the conflicting contentions as to whether defendant made the statements attributed to him by Morris and Hatley and as to the weight to be given the testimony relating to defendant's intoxication. According to the record, the court failed to define or otherwise explain the essential elements of the crimes charged in the bill of indictment or to state the facts the State was required to establish beyond a reasonable doubt to warrant verdicts of guilty.
The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the crime charged, and it is incumbent upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lewis, 250
...on trial, was in fact Jessie B. Lewis, the person indicted, and all other essential elements of the crime charged. State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 553, 153 S.E.2d 63, 66; State v. Clyburn, 273 N.C. 284, 292, 159 S.E.2d 868, Article I, Section 13, of the Constitution of North Carolina provide......
-
State v. Hunter
...is. No such assumption may lawfully be made when a defendant is charged with the crime of robbery itself. See: State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 551, 153 S.E.2d 63 (1967); State v. Fulford, 124 N.C. 798, 32 S.E. 377 (1899). Similarly, no such assumption may lawfully be made when he is charged ......
-
State v. McClure
...a question exclusively for the jury's determination.' This Court reaffirmed and adhered to the rule stated above in State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 153 S.E.2d 63. See also State v. Painter, 265 N.C. 277, 144 S.E.2d 6, and State v. Stephens, 262 N.C. 45, 136 S.E.2d Among Judge Hasty's full fi......
-
State v. Wyrick
...error sufficient to warrant a new trial. Here, the inadvertent omission of an essential element was such error. State v. Logner, 269 N.C. 550, 153 S.E.2d 63 (1967); 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d Criminal Law, § 113, p. The State contends that the defendant never challenged that portion of the Sta......