State v. Simmons
| Decision Date | 17 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 293,293 |
| Citation | 234 N.C. 290,66 S.E.2d 897 |
| Parties | STATE, v. SIMMONS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, for the State.
Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., New Bern, for defendant appellant.
By his twenty-second exception on this appeal defendant challenges, and we hold properly so, the correctness of this portion of the charge given by the judge to the jury upon the trial in Superior Court: 'And in the event, if you should return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, it would be your duty to consider whether or not under the statute, you desire and feel that it is your duty to recommend that the punishment of the defendant shall be imprisonment for life in the State's prison.'
The error in this instruction is that it imposes upon the jury a duty not imposed by the statute, G.S. § 14-17, Section 1 of Chapter 299 of 1949 Session Laws of North Carolina pertaining to punishment for murder in the first degree. This amendment to the statute merely gives to the jury the right, at the time of rendering a verdict of murder in the first degree, in open court, to recommend that the punishment shall be imprisonment for life in the State's prison. It is an unbridled discretionary right. See State v. McMillan, 233 N.C. 630, 65 S.E.2d 212, 213, where the provisions of this amendment to G.S. 14-17 were the subject of consideration and decision. It is there stated: 'The language of this amendment * * * is plain and free from ambiguity and expresses a single, definite and sensible meaning,--a meaning which under the settled law of this State is conclusively presumed to be the one intended by the Legislature', (citing cases). The opinion then continues: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crawford v. Bounds
...which arose between the date of the statute and 1959. Review of all of them is unnecessary. It suffices to say that in State v. Simmons, 234 N.C. 290, 66 S.E.2d 897 (1951), it was held erroneous to characterize to the jury that the statute imposed a "duty" to consider recommending life impr......
-
State v. Jarrette
...251 N.C. 1, 110 S.E.2d 474; State v. Denny, 249 N.C. 113, 105 S.E.2d 446; State v. Conner, 241 N.C. 468, 85 S.E.2d 584; State v. Simmons, 234 N.C. 290, 66 S.E.2d 897; State v. McMillan, 233 N.C. 630, 65 S.E.2d 212; State v. Shackleford, 232 N.C. 299, 59 S.E.2d 825; State v. Mathis, 230 N.C.......
-
Dimery v. State
...in this dissent. 1 See Weighorst v. State, 7 Md. 442 (1855); and State v. Flannigan, 6 Md. 167 (1854).2 See State v. Simmons, 234 N.C. 290, 291, 66 S.E.2d 897, 898 (1951), holding that the jury possess such an 'unbridled discretionary ...
-
State v. Pugh
...he be imprisoned for life, in which event that disposition will be made of the case.' This Court upheld the charge. In State v. Simmons, 234 N.C. 290, 66 S.E.2d 897, 898, the court instructed the jury: '* * * if you should return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, it would b......