State v. Bagley

• Decision Date: 06 March 1912
• Citation: 73 S.E. 995,185 N.C. 608
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. BAGLEY.

73 S.E. 995

(185 N.C. 608)

STATE.

v.BAGLEY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 6, 1912.

1. Homicide (§ 203^*) — Evidence — Dying Declarations.

It is not necessary to the admission of a dying declaration of deceased that he should have himself declared that he believed he was about to die, if all the circumstances and surroundings in which he was placed indicate that he was fully under the influence of the solemnity of such belief.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 430-437; Dec. Dig. § 203.*]

2. Homicide (§ 203*)—Dying Declarations —Fear of Death.

Prior to the making of an alleged dying declaration by deceased, the physician who was present when deceased expired told him that he was in a critical condition, was likely to die, and if there was any message he wanted to leave he had better do so; whereupon deceased stated that it was the prisoner who shot him, and that he saw the prisoner's outline very distinctly as he ran down the street, and was certain it was he. Held, sufficient to justify the admission of decedent's statement as a dying declaration.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. §§ 430-437; Dec. Dig. § 203.*] 3. Criminal Law (§ 889*)—Verdict—Correction.

Under Revisal 1905, § 3271, providing that in a prosecution for homicide the jury shall determine by their verdict whether the crime is murder in the first or second degree, where the jury, in a prosecution for murder, returned with their verdict and, in response to the clerk, replied, "Guilty, " the court properly directed them to reconsider their response and specify the crime of which they found defendant guilty; whereupon they stated they found him "guilty of murder in the first degree."

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 2110; Dec. Dig. § 889.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, Martin County; C. M. Cooke, Judge.

Brad Bagley was convicted of murder in the first degree, sentenced to death, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Winston & Matthews, for appellant.

Attorney General Bickett and Assistant Attorney General Calvert, for the State.

BROWN, J. The prisoner was convicted of the murder of one William R. White, who died on the night of August 15, 1911. The evidence tends to prove that while passing a gate on one of the public streets of the town of Williamston, about 9 o'clock p. m., the deceased was shot from behind, and died the same night.

There is evidence of circumstances tending to prove that the prisoner waylaid and shot the deceased. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the prisoner that the evidence is insufficient to convict, if the dying declarations of the deceased are excluded. Many exceptions of the prisoner relate to the competency of these declarations. Dying declarations are admissible in cases of homicide when they appear to have been made by the deceased in present anticipation of death. It is not always necessary that the deceased should declare himself that he believes he is about to pass away; but all the circumstances and surroundings in which he is placed should indicate that he is fully under the influence of the solemnity of such a belief.

The evidence in this case shoves that the doctor who was present with the deceased when he expired told him that he was in a critical condition, and was likely to die, and that if there was any message he wanted, to leave he had better do so. The doctor informed him distinctly that he could notlive, and It was then that he said that it was the prisoner who shot him; that he saw his outline very distinctly as he ran down the street, and he...