Hudson v. North Carolina

RESPONDENT: North Carolina
LOCATION: Superior Court of Bibb County

DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1958-1962)

CITATION: 363 US 697 (1960)
ARGUED: May 16, 1960
DECIDED: Jun 20, 1960

Facts of the case


Media for Hudson v. North Carolina

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 16, 1960 (Part 1) in Hudson v. North Carolina

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - May 16, 1960 (Part 2) in Hudson v. North Carolina

Earl Warren:

Mr. Moody, you may continue.

Ralph Moody:

May it please the Court.

I -- I think that I will discuss this -- so far as I know, the -- the view point of State of North Carolina has about the case, and it's more, it seems to me, in valuation of the record anyway, I -- conceding that Betts against Brady is still the law.

And so, unless the Court -- whoever member of the Court has wishes to ask me a question about the record or anything, I think I'll say anything follows.

Earl Warren:

Very well.

Mr. Joslin.

William Joslin:

Thank you, sir.

Mr. Moody stated that there were no instances in the record of admission of incompetent testimony against petitioner in this trial.

At page 29 of the record, 28 and 29, the prosecuting witness there is the one of the deputy sheriffs and he's being examined by a solicitor.

He's about to quote a statement made by one of the defendants.

The Court cautioned him on page 28, cautions the jury not to -- not to consider any testimony given as against any defendant other than David Cain, the one who is supposed to made the statement quoted.

Then, over about -- it follows a series of questions and answers.

And on page 29, it finally gets around to the damaging part.

Question, “Did he name them?”

Meaning the defendant David Cain.

“No, sir.”

“Well, you did later on?”

“Yes, sir.”

Question, “Who were the other three boys in the car?”

Answer, “It was Larry Hudson, Ray Stalling and Rubin Grimsley, which is a juvenile which is now turned over to the juvenile authorities.”

“All right.”

There was no objection taken at that point and no limiting instruction at that point that the testimony should not be considered as against petitioner, Larry Hudson.

And true it was.

It did appear, it does appear over on the preceding page but that's a long waste of way in the jury.

I think if counsel had been present, there would certainly had been a -- another instruction made to limit it.

Potter Stewart:

Now, over on the preceding page, we find that the Mr. McGeachy Cain's lawyer was actually still representing the petitioner and the other codefendant, wasn't he?

He said, “I object in behalf of the other boys to any statements by David Cain.”

William Joslin:

Yes, sir.

He did there -- he did make that objection at that point.

And there -- there are instances in here where it says objection by defendants, it isn't clear who made the objection whether it was one of the defendants in person or was the attorney.