State v. Mullis
| Decision Date | 02 May 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 365,365 |
| Citation | 64 S.E.2d 656,233 N.C. 542 |
| Parties | STATE, v. MULLIS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Ralph Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
J. G. Lewis and R. A. Hedrick, Statesville, for defendant, appellant.
The defendant places chief emphasis on a group of exceptions to the charge of the court,--all relating to the action of the court in giving, and in repeating, the State's contention that the prosecuting witness, Mary Emily Mullis, was a woman of subnormal mind. The defendant made no objection in the court below. The challenge comes for the first time on appeal. The defendant takes the position that the contention as given may be held for error notwithstanding the absence of objection in the court below, for that: (1) the contention is unsupported by testimony; and (2) it relates to a matter material to the issue. He recites and relies upon the decisions in State v. Buchanan, 216 N.C. 34, 3 S.E.2d 273, and State v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505, 11 S.E.2d 473. The exceptions are without merit, and the authorities cited by the defendant are distinguishable.
An examination of the charge indicates that the court did not rest the challenged contention on any assumption that it was supported by testimony. The contention as given was expressly based upon the demeanor and appearance of the witness while upon the witness stand and in court. That this is so is made clear by the following preliminary statement of the trial judge: 'The State insists and contends * * * that from her demeanor, her actions, appearance, and the way and manner in which she testified, that you should find that she was a woman not of normal mental faculties but has a backward and subnormal mind; * * *.'
Here, the demeanor of the witness, as is always the case, was in evidence. Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed., Vol. III, Sec. 946, p. 498. See also Herndon v. Southern Railroad Co., 162 N.C. 317, bot. page 318, 78 S.E. 287; Ferebee v. Norfolk Southern Railroad Co., 167 N.C. 290, top page 296, 83 S.E. 360. Accordingly, the Solicitor had the right, within reasonable limits, to draw inferences from and comment on the demeanor of the prosecuting witness, Mary Emily Mullis. Lamborn & Co. v. Hollingsworth & Hatch, 195 N.C. 350, page 352, 142 S.E. 19. And this being so, it was within the province of the trial court to embody in its summation of contentions such relevant inferences as were reasonably deducible from the demeanor of the witness.
A study of the charge as a whole indicates that the contention of the State as to the mental condition of the prosecuting witness was submitted to the jury, not as a controlling, material phase of the case, but rather as subordinate, explanatory features: (1) as tending to show why the prosecuting witness did not make outcry; (2) as tending to corroborate her version of the assault, the contention being that,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams, 4
...must assume that the trial judge ruled properly on matters before him, correctly applying the applicable law. E. g., State v. Mullis, 233 N.C. 542, 64 S.E.2d 656 (1951). We do not, however, dismiss the assignments of error without due Upon close examination we discover that the motions desi......
-
State v. Cutshall
...that a silent record supports the presumption that the proceedings in the court below were regular and free from error. State v. Mullis, 233 N.C. 542, 64 S.E.2d 656. Further, it was the duty of the defendant to see that the record was properly made up and transmitted, and when the matter co......
-
State v. Overman, 662
...was offered and received, the presumption is that the procedure in the court below was regular and free from error. State v. Mullis, 233 N.C. 542, 64 S.E.2d 656. The evidence of the State at the trial of this action shows clearly, and without contradiction, that the place at which the girl ......
-
Balawejder v. Balawejder
...42 N.C.App. 365, 368, 256 S.E.2d 532, 534 (1979). The demeanor of a witness on the stand is always in evidence. State v. Mullis, 233 N.C. 542, 544, 64 S.E.2d 656, 657 (1951). All of the findings of fact regarding respondent's in-court demeanor, attitude, and credibility, including her willi......