State v. Scercy

In State v. Scercy, 159 N.C. App. 344, 583 S.E.2d 339, appeal dismissed, disc. review denied, 357 N.C. 581, 589 S.E.2d 363 (2003), the defendant argued that the trial court's comments during preliminary instructions gave the appearance that the judge was on the same team as the prosecution and that the judge expected the jurors to find the defendant guilty. The judge stated the following: Now, I can assure you these lawyers--as I told you are very competent, and I can assure you that Mrs. Biernacki does not object to this law; she willingly takes this burden of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's what we'll do--what will go on in this case. Id. at 349, 583 S.E.2d at 342. Although in Scercy, the Court did not condone the trial court's use of the first person plural, "we," when speaking directly to the jury, the Court reasoned "that the court was merely commenting on the roles of the court and the attorneys in the trial." Id. at 351, 583 S.E.2d at 343. The Court held that the court's comments were not prejudicial because they did not constitute an improper expression of opinion relating to "'a question of fact to be decided by the jury.'" Id. (quoting N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-1222). The trial court addressed the jury pool prior to jury selection, and in its remarks, made the following statement: Now, I can assure you these lawyers--as I told you are very competent, and I can assure you that the Prosecutor does not object to this law; she willingly takes the burden of proving to you beyond a reasonable doubt. And that's what we'll do --what will go on in this case. Id. at 349, 583 S.E.2d at 342. On appeal, the defendant argued that the judge's comments gave the appearance that he was aligned with the prosecution and expected the defendant to be proven guilty. Id. at 349, 583 S.E.2d at 342. The Court held that the defendant's argument was without merit because although it is the better practice for a court to avoid even ambiguous comments that may imply that it and the prosecutor are a team, here we believe that the court was merely commenting on the roles of the court and the attorneys in the trial, which is not a question of fact to be decided by the jury. Id. at 351, 583 S.E.2d at 343.