State v. Barrington
| Decision Date | 10 April 1906 |
| Citation | 53 S.E. 663,141 N.C. 820 |
| Parties | STATE v. BARRINGTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Richmond County; Moore, Judge.
L Barrington was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and appeals. Affirmed.
Under the rule that it is a matter of defense that an offense was committed in another state, and the burden of proving it is on the defendant, evidence held to present a question for the jury in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon whether the offense was committed within the state.
There was evidence of the state tending to show that on or about September 23, 1905, defendant made an unlawful assault with a deadly weapon on one Robert Leviner, and that such offense was committed in North Carolina. Prosecutor, as a witness for the state, testified to the assault and that same occurred in North Carolina. Witness further stated that the fight was near the home of A. J. Milliken, in Richmond county, N. C and that said Milliken had always been considered a citizen of North Carolina, and voted and listed and paid taxes in North Carolina. On cross-examination the witness testified as follows: There was evidence on the part of the defendant to the effect that under an act of the General Assembly of North Carolina in 1905 the state line between the counties of Richmond, N. C and Marlboro, S. C., had been run and marked, and that according to said line the home of A. J. Milliken and the place where the fight occurred was in South Carolina. A copy from the files of the chief executive office in North Carolina of what purported to be a report from two surveyors, one from North Carolina and one from South Carolina, was to the effect that under an act of the Legislature of each state they had run and marked the state line in the locality, and that they were engaged in the work from October 2 to December 12, 1905. No copy of this report was introduced on the trial below,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Davis
... ... 671, 57 ... S.E. 349, 350. Jurisdiction would be ousted upon showing that ... the offense was committed out of the state. State v ... Buchanan, 130 N.C. 660, 41 S.E. 107. But the presumption ... is in favor of jurisdiction, and the burden is on the ... defendants. State v. Barrington, 141 N.C. 820, 53 ... S.E. 663; State v. Mitchell, 83 N.C. 674 ... The ... motion for change of venue on the ground of local prejudice ... and to secure a fair trial was also a matter resting in the ... sound discretion of the trial court. C. S. § 471; Stroud ... v. U ... ...
-
State v. Batdorf
...737, cert. denied, 287 U.S. 649, 53 S.Ct. 95, 77 L.Ed. 561 (1932); State v. Long, 143 N.C. 670, 57 S.E. 349 (1907); State v. Barrington, 141 N.C. 820, 53 S.E. 663 (1906); State v. Blackley, 138 N.C. 620, 50 S.E. 310 The majority of states, however, require the state to prove beyond a reason......
-
State v. Long
...State v. Buchanan, 130 N.C. 660, 41 S.E. 107. But the presumption is in favor of jurisdiction, and the burden is on the defendant. State v. Barrington, supra. Revisal 1905, § 3255, forbids quashing or arrest of judgment "for want of a proper and perfect venue" when the offense charged is on......