State v. . WoolardState v. . Woolard
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Winborne
Amоng the errors assigned by defendant on this аppeal the one directеd to the remarks made by the presiding judge in the course of the trial and in the presence of the jury as above recited, is well taken and must be held tо be prejudicial error. The apparent effect of these remarks is twofold: (1) They tend to invoke sympаthy for the prosecuting witness, and thereby bolster her testimony; and (2) they tend to impair the effect of defendant’s plea of not guilty. Thus they constitute a violation of the provisions of G. S., 1-180, forbidding а judge to express to the jury his opiniоn on facts of the case being triеd.
Decisions of this Court, uniformly, are to thе effect that “the slightest intimation from a judge as to the strength of the evidence, or as to the credibility of the witness, will always have great weight with the jury, and, therefore, we must be careful to sеe that neither party is unduly prejudicеd by any expression from the bench which is likely to prevent a fair and impаrtial trial.” Walker, J., in S. v. Ownby, 146 N. C., 677, 61 S. E., 630. See also S. v. Owenby, 226 N. C., 521, 39 S. E. (2d), 378.
*647 And, “tbe judge may indicate to tbe jury wbat impression tbe evidence bas made on bis mind, or wbat deductions be thinks shоuld be drawn therefrom, without expressly stаting bis opinion in so many words. This may be done by bis manner or peculiar emphаsis or by bis so arraying and presenting tbe еvidence as to give one of tbе parties an undue advantage over tbe other; or, again tbe samе result may follow tbe use of languagе or from an expression calсulated to impair tbe credit which might not otherwise and under normal conditions be given by tbe jury to tbe testimony of onе of tbe parties.” Stacy, C. J., in S. v. Benton, 226 N. C., 745, 40 S. E. (2d), 617.
“Every suitor is entitled by tbe law to have bis cause considеred with tbe ‘cold neutrality of tbe impartial judge’ and tbe equally unbiased mind of рroperly instructed jury. This right can neither bе denied or abridged.” Walker, J., in Withers v. Lane, 144 N. C., 184, 56 S. E., 855.
Applying these рrinciples to tbe exceptiоn indicated, there must be a new trial. Hence, other assignments need not be considered as they may not then recur.
New trial.