State v. Caudle, 208 N.C. 249 (1935)

May 22, 1935 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

208 N.C. 249

STATE v. B. A. CAUDLE.

(Filed 22 May, 1935.)

1. Criminal Law G r—

Evidence cannot be beld competent as corroborative of defendant’s testimony when such evidence is offered before defendant takes tbe stand in bis own bebalf.

2. Criminal Law I g—

It is incumbent upon tbe appellant, if be desires more specific instruction on any point, or a more detailed and complete statement of bis contentions, to make request therefor, and where tbe charge of tbe court is sufficiently full and complete to meet tbe requirements of C. S., 564, any omission will not be beld for reversible error in tbe absence of such request calling tbe attention of tbe court to tbe desired instructions.

3. Criminal Law I k—

A general verdict of guilty upon a bill of indictment containing several counts, charging offenses of the same grade, carries with it a verdict of guilty on each count, and will support a judgment upon any valid count in the bill.

Appeal from Clement, J., at November Term, 1934, of Stamxy.

Affirmed.

The appellant B. A. Candle was tried upon a two-count bill of indictment charging him and Noah Bennett and Tom Taylor with (1) larceny of pipe, pump, and gasoline engine, of value of more than $20.00, the property of the Hardaway Contracting Company, and (2) feloniously receiving said stolen property, knowing it to have been stolen.

The jury returned the following verdict: “That the said Noah Bennett is not guilty, and the said B. A. Caudle and Tom Taylor are each guilty, in the manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment.”

From judgment of imprisonment pronounced upon the verdict, the defendant B. A. Caudle appealed, assigning error.

Attorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorney-General Ailcen for the State, appellee.

B. M. Covington for defendant, appellant.

ScheNCK, J.

The appellant’s first exception is to the court’s refusal to allow one Goodman to testify that he had employed the defendant to try to discover or locate a magneto that was stolen from him. We fail to see the relevancy of this evidence to the issue involved. It could not have been considered as corroborative of the defendant’s testimony, since it was offered before the defendant took the stand as a witness in his own behalf.

We have examined the defendant’s several exceptions to the charge and find no reversible error. If the defendant desired more specific instructions he should have' made request therefor. “It is a well understood rule of practice, upon appeals, reasserted time and again by this Court, that error cannot be assigned and become the subject of review in an omission or neglect to give specific instruction, even when proper in itself, unless asked, and thus called to the attention of the judge, in order that he may rule thereon. This is just to the court and opposing counsel, and indispensable to a fair trial and to prevent surprise.” S. v. Bailey, 100 N. C., 528.

There was ample evidence in this ease to sustain a verdict of guilty of larceny, and the charge as it relates to that count, in the absence of requests for more specific instructions or a more detailed and complete statement of the contentions of the defendant, meets the requirements of tbe statute, C. S., 564, and tbe practice of our courts. Tbe jury returned a general verdict of guilty, and sucb verdict is imputed to tbe first count, and tbe judgment must be sustained. It is said in S. v. Toole, 106 N. C., 136, “When there are several counts in tbe bill, and there is a general verdict of guilty (or not guilty), that is a verdict, as to each of tbe counts, of guilty (or not guilty, as tbe case may be). If it is a general verdict of not guilty, tbe defendant is entitled to bis discharge. If it is a general verdict of guilty upon an indictment containing several counts, charging offenses of tbe same grade, and punishable alike, tbe verdict upon any one, if valid, supports tbe judgment, and it is immaterial that tbe verdict as to tbe other counts is not good, either by reason of defective counts or by tbe admission of incompetent evidence, or giving objectionable instructions as to sucb other counts, provided tbe errors complained of do not affect tbe valid verdict rendered on this count.” See, also, S. v. Cross, 106 N. C., 650, and cases there cited.

Affirmed.