State v. AdamsState v. Adams
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Graham
Lead Opinion
Defendant testified in her own behalf and also offered several witnesses who testified as to her good character and reputation in the community in which she lived. The сourt gave the following instructions with regard to this evidence.
“Now, members of the jury, evidence has been received with regard to the defendant, Marie Adams’, general character and reputation. Although good character or good reputation is not an excuse fоr crime, the law recognizes that a person of good character may be less likely to commit a crime than one who lacks that character, therеfore, if you believe from the evidence that the defendant has a good character, you may cоnsider this fact in your determination of the defendant’s guilt or innоcence and give it such weight as to you it should recеive in connection with all the other evidence.”
Dеfendant assigns as error the failure of the court to instruct the jury that her character evidence could bе considered as bearing on her credibility.
Where a dеfendant testifies and then offers evidence of his goоd character, he is entitled to have the jury consider his character evidence both as bearing upon his credibility and as substantive evidence bearing directly uрon the issue of his *422guilt or innocence. Character еvidence, however, is a subordinate and not a substantive feature of the trial. Therefore, the failure of the trial judge, in the absence of a request, to give any instruсtions relative to the significance of charaсter evidence, is not prejudicial error. State v. Burell, 252 N.C. 115, 113 S.E. 2d 16, and cаses therein cited. However, where the trial judge undertakes to instruct on this phase of a case, even without request that he do so, it is necessary that his instructions be complete. State v. Wortham, 240 N.C. 132, 81 S.E. 2d 254; State v. Bridgers, 233 N.C. 577, 64 S.E. 2d 867. Here defendant testified. It was therefore error for the court to instruct the jury that her character evidence could be considered as substаntive evidence without instructing that it could also be considered as bearing upon her credibility. The deficiency of the charge in this respect requires a new trial.
Defendant strenuously contends that the court erred in failing to submit to the jury the issue of self-defense. The evidence contained in the record presents a close question as to whether defendant was entitled to have thе jury consider this question. Since the evidence presеnted at the next trial may differ in substance from the evidence in the record now before us, we refrain from pаssing on this question. There are other assignments of error which we likewise do not discuss.
New trial.
Judges Campbell and Britt concur.
Concurrence Opinion
concurring.
I agree that defendant is entitlеd to a new trial for the reason stated in the opinion by Judge Graham. However, on the evidence presented at the trial, I think defendant was entitled to jury instructions on her plea of self-defense.