State v. Tinsley
| Decision Date | 01 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 86,86 |
| Citation | 196 S.E.2d 746,283 N.C. 564 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Larry TINSLEY. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan; Asst. Atty. Gen. Thomas B. Wood, for the State.
Corbett & Corbett, by Albert A. Corbett, Jr., Smithfield, for defendant appellant.
Defendant states his first assignment of error as follows: 'Was the defendant, Larry Tinsley's, right to a fair and impartial trial prejudiced by the opinions expressed and the questions asked or objections sustained or overruled by the court in the presence of the jury?'
Defendant sets forth in his brief numerous excerpts from the record. It would be repetitious and unrewarding to set forth and consider each of the portions of the record challenged by this assignment of error. We think it sufficient to set forth representative portions which defendant contends were prejudicial.
'COURT: You say you heard some shooting outside?
A. I said I went in the place and there was some shooting going on on the outside. There were some people out there fussing.
COURT: Did you say you heard some shooting outside?
A. Yes sir.
COURT: Is that what you said?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Awhile ago you said you didn't see any guns except the first time when you saw the guns. STATE OBJECTS.
COURT: You are making a statement.
OBJECTION SUSTAINED.
QUESTIONS continued by Mr. Corbett:
The first time I went over there back to Frank's house I saw Larry Tinsley, Jesse Snead and Billy Ray, all three of them standing there. Jesse Snead had both guns in his hands. I saw Larry Tinsley laying down by the barrel or semething like that.
COURT: Did you say you did or didn't?
A. Yes sir.'
The bulk of defendant's exceptions under this assignment of error involves questions directed to the State's principal witnesses--three teenagers present at the 'Soul Strut' on the night of the shooting. It is manifest from a reading of the record that the testimony of these witnesses was often inaudible, confusing and contradictory.
In State v. Kirby, 273 N.C. 306, 160 S.E.2d 24, this Court stated:
Careful examination of the trial record reveals no comment by the trial judge which might reasonably be intepreted as tending to impeach or discredit any of the witnesses. To the contrary, it appears that the trial judge exercised remarkable patience and impartiality in posing questions which clarified and developed relevant evidence.
Defendant also contends the following portion of the trial judge's instructions to the jury constituted prejudicial error.
'Now a verdict does not become a verdict unless it is unanimous, and all twelve of you must agree in order to bring in a lawful verdict.
I don't mean to say that you have to agree as such, but I mean to tell you that you cannot bring in a lawful verdict unless it is unanimous under our law.
DEFENDANT'S EXCEPTION NO. 19'
Defendant argues that this portion of the charge might have led the jury to believe that they could reach an agreement even though they had a reasonable doubt concerning defendant's guilt. We do not agree. In the first sentence of this portion of the charge, the judge correctly instructed the jury that their verdict must be unanimous. The second sentence seems to emphasize that the court was not mandating a unanimous verdict if any juror had reasonable doubt as to defendant's guilt. In any event, if there was any ambiguity in this portion of the charge, it was cured by the fact that the trial judge on at least six occasions (including his final mandate to the jury) correctly placed the burden upon the State to prove each element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the jury to return a verdict of guilty.
This assignment of error is overruled.
In his last assignment of error defendant contends the trial judge committed prejudicial error by allowing the State to impeach its own witness.
Billy Ray, a tenth-grade student at Smithfield-Selma High School, testified in substance that on the night of 27 August 1972 he saw defendant and Jesse Snead in the vicinity of the 'Soul Strut' loading their rifles, and that Snead handed him a refle to 'hold for a minute.' He later 'laid the gun on the ground and went in the Soul Strut.' On cross-examination the witness said: 'I did not see Larry Tinsley (defendant) laying down by any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Britt
...Rather, it is the duty of the objecting party to call to the attention of the trial court the objectionable part. State v. Tinsley,283 N.C. 564, 196 S.E.2d 746 (1973); State v. Brooks, 260 N.C. 186, 132 S.E.2d 354 Applying these principles to the evidence in this case, we hold that it was n......
-
State v. Kirkman, 13
...See also: State v. Britt, 291 N.C. 528, 231 S.E.2d 644 (1977); State v. Warren, 289 N.C. 551, 223 S.E.2d 317 (1976); State v. Tinsley, 283 N.C. 564, 196 S.E.2d 746 (1973); State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 35, 181 S.E.2d 572 (1971), death sentence vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 939, 92 S......
-
State v. Greenlee
...(1981) (corroboration); State v. Berry, 295 N.C. 534, 246 S.E.2d 758 (1978) (clarification of statement by witness); State v. Tinsley, 283 N.C. 564, 196 S.E.2d 746 (1973) (corroboration even though minor differences with in-court testimony); State v. Charles, 53 N.C.App. 567, 281 S.E.2d 438......
-
State v. Shepherd
...controversy to be resolved by the jury." State v. Yellorday, 297 N.C. 574, 581, 256 S.E.2d 205, 210 (1979), citing State v. Tinsley, 283 N.C. 564, 196 S.E.2d 746 (1973). Having reviewed the trial court's examination of Dr. Stanley, we conclude that the trial judge questioned the witness to ......