State v. Barfield

• Citation: 7 Ired. 299,29 N.C. 299
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 30 June 1847
• Parties: THE STATE v. JOHN BARFIELD.

7 Ired. 299

29 N.C. 299

THE STATE

v.JOHN BARFIELD.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1847.

Where, on the trial of an indictment for murder, the prisoner proved a sufficient legal provocation at the time to extenuate the homicide, it is not competent to prove, in order to shew that the killing was not on the immediate provocation but from previous malice, that the prisoner, a year or a month previously, had declared his intention to kill two or three men, it being admitted that the prisoner had no reference in such threats to the deceased, as one of those men.

Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cumberland County at the Spring Term 1847, his Honor Judge BATTLE, presiding.

The prisoner was indicted for the murder of Alfred Flowers. In opening the case for the State, the Solicitor stated, that he expected to prove from antecedent threats, as well as from the circumstances attendant upon the killing, that it was done with malice express, or, if he failed in that proof, he expected to show that the homicide was committed under circumstances, from which the law would imply malice.

He then called Samuel Flowers, the father of the deceased, who testified that he was sent for, and went to the house of his son, about nine o'clock on the night he was killed--that when he arrived he found his son dead--that his deceased son's wife, seemed greatly distressed, when she met him, and the prisoner mocked the cries, which she made in weeping--that he saw some person uncover the corpse of his son, when the prisoner, who was present, remarked, that he had laid him cold.

Mrs. Flowers, the widow of the deceased, was then introduced. She stated that the prisoner came to her husband's house about one o'clock of the day, on which the homicide was committed, that he and her husband appeared to be friendly, and her husband invited him to drink--that shortly afterwards, a quarrel arose between them, in consequence of some offensive language used by the prisoner, and after a short time, she heard her husband complain to the prisoner, that he had cut his pantaloons, and the witness said the pantaloons were cut, but she did not see by whom, or how it was done--that the parties then appeared to become friendly, and continued to drink together, until her husband became very drunk, and the prisoner excited by liquor, but not drunk--that the prisoner and her husband were connected by the marriage of the former with an Aunt of the latter, and that the latter frequently called him Uncle Jack--that towards night, another quarrel arose between them, and her husband went out of doors, when the prisoner shut the door upon him, and refused to let him come in--but upon her husband's getting a pestle to beat down the door, and her interposition, the door was opened--that her husband then took a chair and sat down, and told the prisoner that he had come there uninvited, and he might take the road and go home--that the prisoner then commenced giving the damned lie, to every thing said by her husband or herself--that her husband arose from his chair, saying, he could not stand it, and, as he did so, the prisoner came towards him with his knife drawn, and thrusting it at him--that her husband, thereupon, raised his chair and pitched it over the prisoner's head, without intending, as she thought, to strike him--that in the effort to throw the chair, her husband staggered and fell, upon which the prisoner instantly rushed upon him, and gave him several stabs while he was down--that she assisted him to rise and he went towards the door, where the prisoner followed, and stabbed him once or twice more on the back--that she then assisted him to the bed, upon which he laid down, and soon after died; she also testified to the fact of the prisoner's mocking her, and saying, that he had laid Alfred cold.

Dr. Hicks was then introduced and testified, that he was called to see the deceased about nine o'clock of the night when he was killed--that when he arrived, he found that he had been dead some time--that he examined the fore-part of his body, and found three wounds, one on his neck, another near the pit of the stomach, and a third on the breast; the two first of which were slight, and the last, deep and calculated to produce death, and that it appeared to have been inflicted with a dirk knife. This witness, testified further, that the deceased was a low, corpulent, strong made, athletic man, about forty years of age, and that, when he arrived at the house of the deceased, the prisoner appeared to have been drinking, but was not drunk.

The counsel for the State here announced, that they had closed their testimony, and would introduce no other witness, unless it became necessary to do so, in consequence of the testimony introduced in the defence.

The counsel for the prisoner, then called two witnesses, to prove, that Mrs. Flowers had given a different account of the transaction, when examined before the jury of inquest. One of these witnesses, who acted as coroner, testified, that on her examination before the jury of inquest, Mrs. Flowers said, that when she saw the chair raised, and the knife drawn, she became alarmed, and turned and went towards the door, and presently she heard a noise, as if something had happened, and, turning around, discovered her husband going towards the bed, on which he fell, and soon expired. They stated, upon cross-examination, that when Mrs. Flowers was sworn to give testimony before the jury of inquest, she appeared to be greatly distressed, and very few questions were put to her. And they both testified that she had always borne a good character, and they would believe her when examined upon oath.

Another witness, Theophilus Barfield, a brother of the prisoner, was then called, and testified, that Mrs. Flowers stated to him, that she did not see her husband killed, having gone out of doors, when she saw her husband raise the chair.

The prisoner's counsel then introduced as witnesses, John and Robert Flowers, sons of the deceased, who attended the trial, as witnesses for the State. Robert Flowers, the elder of the two, a lad, sixteen or seventeen years old, testified, that he was not at home, until late in the afternoon of the day, when the prisoner came to his father's house; that, when he went into the house, he saw the prisoner sitting on a table with a gun in his hand; that he demanded the gun of the prisoner, who immediately delivered it to him; that he then went out of doors, and when he came back, he found the prisoner lying on a bed; that his father sent him to draw some liquor, and when he returned, he found his father sitting in a chair near the door; that the prisoner came towards his father, when his father arose from his chair, took it up, and threw it towards the prisoner, and it passed a little above his head without touching him, (and he believed his father intended to throw it over his head without striking him,) and in doing so, he staggered and fell, when the prisoner rushed upon him, and stabbed him; that he did not see the prisoner have any knife in his hand, when he first came towards him, and he saw the prisoner draw it from his pocket at or about the time, when his father raised the chair, and the prisoner rushed upon his father instantly that the chair was thrown; that immediately after his father was stabbed, he got up and went towards the door, and the prisoner followed and stabbed him again, and his father then went to the bed and laid down, and soon afterwards died; that he did not see his mother assist his father either to get up from the floor, or to carry him to the bed, and thought, if she had done so, he would have seen it. He testified further, upon cross-examination, that after his father was dead, he went into the yard where the prisoner then was, and asked him why he had killed his father, to which the prisoner replied, that if ...