State v. Riley

• Decision Date: 31 October 1893
• Citation: 18 S.E. 168,113 N.C. 648
• Parties: STATE v. RILEY
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

18 S.E. 168

113 N.C. 648

STATE v. RILEY

Supreme Court of North Carolina

October 31, 1893

Appeal from superior court, Orange county; H. R. Bryan, Judge.

W. J Riley was convicted of a criminal offense, and he appeals. Reversed.

Though the evidence for the state in a criminal case is uncontradicted, the court can only instruct the jury to return a verdict of guilty if they believe the state's evidence; and it is error for it to direct the clerk to enter a verdict of guilty.

C. D Turner, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK J.

The evidence for the state being uncontradicted, the court told the jury if they believed the evidence, to return a verdict of guilty. This was correct upon the evidence set out, and if the jury had returned a verdict there would be no ground for exception. State v. Burke, 82 N.C. 551. But the case further states: "After pausing for a moment or two, and the jury manifesting no disposition to retire, the court told the clerk to enter the verdict of guilty." It was not necessary that the jury should retire, but it was indispensable that the jury should agree upon and render the verdict. The court cannot direct a verdict in a criminal case. State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275; State v Shule, 32 N.C. 153. In the latter case, Pearson, J thus draws the distinction in this respect between civil and criminal actions: "When a plaintiff fails to make out a case, the judge may say to the jury, 'If all the evidence offered be true, the plaintiff has not made out a case,', and direct a verdict to be entered for the defendant, unless the plaintiff chooses to submit to a nonsuit. It is, in effect, a demurrer to the evidence. The plaintiff has no right to complain, for in reviewing the question of law he has the benefit of the supposition that the evidence offered by him and the inferences of fact are all true. So, when the plaintiff's case is admitted, the whole question turns upon the defense attempted to be set up. If, taking the facts to be as contended for by the defendant, the court is of opinion that he has made out no answer to the action, it is proper, and saves time, for the court to direct the verdict to be entered for the plaintiff. The defendant is not prejudiced because, upon appeal, the question will be presented in the most favorable point of view for him. But the present case is not like either of these, for the state had not made out a case unless the state's witness was believed, and the credibility of witness must be passed on exclusively by the jury. It is true, from the case as made out, there could be but little room to doubt that both defendants were guilty, and the wonder is why the jury should have hesitated about convicting both. Still that was a matter for the jury, and its being a plain case, although it accounts for, does not legalize, this novel mode in entering a verdict." The rule is also laid down by Mr. Circuit Judge McCrary (Mr. Justice Miller...