State v. Smith
Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
Citation | 75 N.C. 306 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE v. ISAAC H. SMITH. |
A court below commits error in allowing a Solicitor, prosecuting for the State, to use such language as follows, in his address to the jury on the trial:
“The defendant was such a scoundrel that he was compelled to move his trial from Jones county, to a county where he was not known;” and again:
“The bold, brazen-faced rascal had the impudence to write me a note yesterday, begging me not to prosecute him, and threatening me that if I did, he would get the Legislature to impeach me.”
Such language is calculated to create a prejudice against a prisoner, and when used before a jury on his trial, entitles him to a venire de novo.
(The cases of Dennis v. Haywood, 63 N. C. Rep., 53; Jenkins v. N. C. Ore Dressing Co., 65 N. C. Rep., 563; and State v. Williams, Ibid, 505, cited and approved.)
INDICTMENT, for Forgery, tried before SEYMOUR, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of CRAVEN Superior Court, having been removed from the Superior Court of Jones County.
The facts necessary to an understanding of the case, as decided, are fully stated in the opinion of the Court.
There was a verdict of guilty and judgment thereupon, and the prisoner appealed.
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State .
W. J. Clarke & Son, for the prisoner .
It is necessary to notice only one of the defendant's exceptions, as upon that he is entitled to a new trial. The Solicitor, prosecuting in behalf of the State, in addressing the jury, was allowed by the Court to use the following language: “The defendant was such a scoundrel that he was compelled to move his trial from Jones County to a county where he was not known.” And again: “The bold, brazen-faced rascal had the impudence to write me a note yesterday, begging me not to prosecute him, and threatening me that if I did, he would get the Legislature to impeach me.”
The purpose and natural effect of such language was to create a prejudice against the defendant, not arising out of any legal evidence before them; for the jury were precluded from enquiry into the causes or motives for moving the trial, and even from the knowledge whether the trial was moved by the State or the defendant. So in respect of the letter, alleged to have been received from the defendant, and the epithets predicated upon it; it was not in evidence, and could not be, yet its alleged contents were allowed to go to the jury with all the force and effect of competent testimony. Such a letter constituted a new and distinct offence, and was the proper subject of another indictment and prosecution....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Floyd v. State
...... either to the statement or the assumption or to commenting on. facts not in evidence to prejudice of adverse parties.". . . Perkins. v. Guy, 55 Miss. 153; Cavanah v. State, 56 Miss. 299; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; Wolffe v. Minnis, 74 Ala. 386; State v. Smith, 75 N.C. 306; Hampton v. State, 40 So. 544; Bufkin v. State,. 98 So. 455. . . There. was not an actual proof of venue. . . There. is no proof to show what is meant by the statement "in. or near Flora, Madison County, Mississippi." This proof. is too indefinite. ......
-
Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
...sufficient to justify a reversal. Fox v. People, 95 Ill. 71–78; Hennies v. Vogel, 87 Ill. 242;Ferguson v. State, 49 Ind. 33;State v. Smith, 75 N. C. 306; Earll v. People, 99 Ill. 123;Brown v. Swineford, 44 Wis. 282, 292–294; Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N. H. 317–322;Hilliard v. Beattie, 59 N. H.......
-
The State v. Burns
...713; Rudiger v. Ry. Co., 77 N.W. 169; Stratton v. Nye, 63 N.W. 929; Martin v. State, 63 Miss. 505; Cross v. State, 68 Ala. 476; State v. Smith, 75 N.C. 306 at 307; v. Landwerlen, 92 Ind. 34 at 34-5; Magoon v. Ry. Co., 31 A. 156; Tucker v. Henniker, 41 N.H. 317.] The defendant was not charge......
-
McFalls v. State
...282; 62 Ala. 155; 71 Mich. 452; 35 Mich. 371; 126 Ill. 150; 35 Mich. 371, 392; 62 N.W. 572; 11 Ga. 633, 634; 41 N.H. 317; 52 N.W. 873; 75 N.C. 306; N.C. 589; 2 Enc. Pl. & Pr. 727; 1 Bish. Crim. Law, § 969; Ell. App. Prac. § 672; Kerr, Hom. § 305; 1 Thomp. Tr. §§ 263, 264; ib. pp. 754, 755; ......