State of North Carolina v. Alexander Brinson — Court of Appeals (Filed 2 July 1969)
Factual and Procedural Background
Alexander Brinson was indicted for the felony of offering a bribe in the amount of $25.00 to a Scotland County deputy sheriff, allegedly to influence the deputy to permit the defendant to operate a whiskey still. The defendant pleaded not guilty. At trial, Scotland County Deputy Sheriff Wayne Davis, Jr. testified that he located the still and found mash that was in the process of fermenting; no manufactured liquor was found at the site. The State's evidence was that, upon learning that the still had been located, the defendant gave the deputy $25.00 to induce him to take no action so that the defendant could complete the run of the fermenting mash and later remove the still. There was no evidence introduced at trial as to any specific quantity of mash found at the site.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The trial court imposed a sentence of not less than one year nor more than five years. Defendant appealed from the Scotland County Superior Court (Bailey, J.), December 1968 Session, to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the trial judge's recapitulation of the evidence — specifically the judge's reference to "five hundred gallons of mash at the still site, ready to be run" — constituted a prejudicial misstatement of material fact warranting reversal of the defendant's bribery conviction.
- Whether an inadvertent misstatement in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the trial court's attention in time to permit correction, and the consequences if it is not so called.
Arguments of the Parties
Defendant's Arguments
- The defendant argued that the trial judge's statement referring to "five hundred gallons of mash" was inaccurate and prejudicial because there was no evidence in the record regarding any quantity of mash at the still site.
- Relying on State v. McCoy, the defendant contended that an inaccurate statement of a material fact not shown in the evidence constitutes reversible error unless corrected when called to the court's attention during or at the conclusion of the charge.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any specific argument made by the State opposing the defendant's claim regarding the judge's statement.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| State v. McCoy, 236 N.C. 121, 71 S.E.2d 921 |
That an inaccurate statement of facts contained in the evidence should be called to the attention of the trial court during or at the conclusion of the charge so the error might be corrected; and that a statement of a material fact not shown by the evidence constitutes reversible error. |
The defendant relied on McCoy to argue the judge's reference to "five hundred gallons" required reversal. The Court distinguished the present misstatement as not relating to a fact material to the bribery offense and therefore not reversible under McCoy. |
| State v. Greer, 238 N.C. 325, 77 S.E.2d 917 |
Statement of the elements of the offense of bribing a public officer. |
The Court cited Greer for the proposition that bribery requires (1) offering a sum of money, (2) to a public officer, (3) with corrupt intent to influence the officer's action in the discharge of a legal duty, and applied those elements to the evidence in this case. |
| State v. Noland, 204 N.C. 329, 168 S.E. 412 |
Statement of the elements of the offense of bribing a public officer (corroborative authority to Greer). |
The Court cited Noland along with Greer to define the elements of bribery and used those elements to assess whether the misstatement about quantity of mash was material to the bribery charge. |
| State v. Cornelius, 265 N.C. 452, 144 S.E.2d 203 |
That an inadvertence in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the trial court's attention in time to permit correction. |
The Court relied on Cornelius to state that the misstatement was an inadvertence which should have been called to the trial court's attention for correction; but because the misstatement did not concern a material fact of the bribery offense, it was not reversible error. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court first identified the specific portion of the trial judge's charge challenged on appeal: a recapitulation by the trial judge that referred to "five hundred gallons of mash at the still site, ready to be run," a quantity for which no evidence was introduced at trial. The Court examined the State's proof and noted that the deputy sheriff located the still and found mash fermenting, and that the defendant gave the deputy $25 to induce him to refrain from taking action so the defendant could finish the run and remove the still.
The Court then set out the legal elements of the crime of bribing a public officer — offering money to a public officer with corrupt intent to influence the officer's discharge of duty — citing State v. Greer and State v. Noland. Applying those elements to the evidence, the Court concluded the record contained proof that the defendant gave $25 to the deputy, knowing he was a deputy sheriff, with the intent to dissuade him from interrupting the illegal manufacture of whiskey.
Turning to the alleged misstatement, the Court addressed the defendant's reliance on State v. McCoy and acknowledged the general rule that an inaccurate statement of material fact not shown by the evidence may constitute reversible error and that inadvertences in recapitulating evidence should be called to the judge's attention for correction (citing State v. Cornelius). The Court analyzed whether the referenced quantity of mash bore on the elements of the bribery charge. Because the amount of mash fermenting at the site had no bearing on whether a bribe was offered with corrupt intent to a public officer, the Court concluded the reference to "five hundred gallons" was not a statement of a material fact with respect to the crime charged.
Consequently, the Court characterized the trial court's reference as an inadvertence that should have been called to the attention of the trial court in time to permit correction, but determined that the inadvertence did not amount to reversible error because it was not material to the bribery offense.
Holding and Implications
AFFIRMED.
Holding: The Court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence, concluding that the trial judge's inaccurate reference to "five hundred gallons of mash" in recapitulating the evidence was an inadvertence and not a statement of a material fact relevant to the bribery charge; therefore the misstatement did not warrant reversal.
Implications: The direct effect is that the defendant's conviction and sentence (one to five years) were upheld. The opinion reiterates established principles — the elements of bribery and the rule that inadvertent misstatements must be called to the court's attention to permit correction — but it does not announce or purport to establish any new legal precedent beyond applying those principles to the facts of this case.
Counsel of record identified in the opinion: Attorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney General Jean A. Benoy, and Special Assistant Thomas J. Bolch for the State; Walter J. Cashwell, Jr. for the defendant appellant. The opinion was authored by Campbell, J.; Brock and Morris, JJ., concurred.
Show full summary ...