State v. Old, s. 66--C

• Decision Date: 20 September 1967
• Docket Number: 66--C,S--7,No. 7,Nos. 66--C,S--10,S--9,s. 66--C,7
• Citation: 271 N.C. 341,156 S.E.2d 756
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Grady Worth OLD,rrr

Page 756

156 S.E.2d 756

271 N.C. 341

STATE of North Carolina v. Grady Worth OLD, Nos. 66--CrS--7, 66--CrS--9, 66--CrS--10.

No. 7.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 20, 1967.

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., George A. Goodwyn, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

John T. Chaffin, Elizabeth City, for defendant appellant.

HIGGINS, Justice.

The case on appeal as agreed, and as certified by the Clerk, shows that a life sentence for murder was imposed on the defendant in the case in which he was charged with assault on Taylor, and a sentence of imprisonment for 24 months was imposed in the case in which he was charged with the murder of Williams.

In each of the three cases, the record shows (1) a verdict of not guilty was directed by the Court, (2) a plea of guilty was entered by the defendant, and (3) a verdict of guilty was found by the jury. Patently, the record can speak the truth only with respect to one of the verdicts. If the Court entered a verdict of not guilty, that ended the prosecution. If the defendant entered a plea of guilty, no issue remained for jury determination. Only if (a) and (b) are eliminated may the jury intervene.

Here involved is a judgment of life imprisonment for first degree murder. Before dealing with the merits of the appeal, we must first have before us an accurate record of the proceedings in the Superior Court. Any error, mistake, or omission in the records of that Court must be corrected in that Court.

'It is universally recognized that a court of record has the inherent power and duty to make its records speak the truth. It has the power to amend its records, correct the mistakes of its clerk or other officers of the court, or to supply defects or omissions in the record, and no lapse of time will debar the court of the power to discharge this duty. 14 Am.Jur., Courts, sections 141, 142, and 143, page 351, et seq.; 21 C.J.S. Courts, § 227b, page 423; McIntosh, N.C. Practice and Procedure, Second Edition, Volume 2, section 1711, page 161; Galloway v. McKeithen, 27 N.C. 12, 42 Am.Dec. 153; Phillipse v. Higdon, 44 N.C. 380; Mayo v. Whitson, 47 N.C. 231; Foster v. Woodfin, 65 N.C. 29; Walton v. Pearson, 85 N.C. 34; Brooks v. Stephens, 100 N.C. 297, 6 S.E. 81; Ricaud v. Alderman & Flanner, 132 N.C. 62, 43 S.E. 543; Norfolk S.R.R. Co. v. Reid, 187 N.C. 320, 121 S.E. 534; Oliver v. Board of Com'rs of Johnston County, 194 N.C. 380, 139 S.E. 767; State v. Tola, 222 N.C. 406, 23 S.E.2d 321; State v. Maynor, 226 N.C. 645, 39 S.E.2d 833; Gagnon v. United States, 193 U.S. 451, 24 S.Ct. 510, 48 L.Ed. 745.

This Court has quoted with approval many times the statement contained in the opinion of Ruffin, J., in the case of Walton v. Pearson, supra, which is as follows: 'It is the duty of every court to supply the omissions of its officers in recording its proceedings and to see that its record truly sets forth its action in each and every instance; and this it must do upon the application of any person interested, and without regard to its effect upon the rights of parties, or of third persons; and neither is it open to any other tribunal to call in question the propriety of its action or the verity of its records, as made. This power of a court to amend its records has been too often recognized by this Court, and its exercise commended, to require the citation of authorities--other than a few of the leading cases on the subject. See Phillipse v. Higdon, 44 N.C. 380; Foster v. Woodfin, 65 N.C. 29; Mayo v. Whitson, 47 N.C. 231; Kirkland v. Mangum, 50 N.C. 313."

The foregoing statement is quoted from the opinion of Denny, J., (later C.J.) in State v. Cannon, 244...