State v. Best
| Decision Date | 19 October 1892 |
| Citation | 15 S.E. 930,111 N.C. 638 |
| Parties | STATE v. BEST. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Craven county; WINSTON, Judge.
George Best was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.
On the trial of a man for the murder of his wife by placing poison in bread of which she ate, evidence of experts that poison was found in bread taken from defendant's house on the day after the alleged homicide is properly admitted where the court charges that, before the jury can consider such evidence, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such bread was a part of the same of which deceased ate and that caused her death,--the same that was given to witness; and that it had not been tampered with, nor any poison placed in or upon it after it came into the hands of witness, and before the same was analyzed.
Caho & Leigh, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
There was but one exception to evidence. The testimony offered by the state (there was none on the part of the prisoner) tended to prove by circumstantial evidence that the deceased, who was the wife of the prisoner, came to her death from the effects of arsenical poison placed in the flour which was used by her in the preparation of dinner for herself and other members of her family, and that the poison used was an article called "Rough on Rats," and was placed in said flour by the prisoner with felonious purpose. One Emperor Rouse testified that he went to the house of the prisoner the day after the death of the deceased, and there he found bread and flour. The flour had been mixed with water. Witness got it, put it in a paper sack, and gave it to Dr. Primrose, the coroner, who came on Thursday, two days after the death of deceased, to hold an inquest. Witness found something soft in the sifter, which looked like wheat bran, but was not. Witness gave it all (the bread, the dough and the soft stuff) to Dr. Primrose, the coroner, next day after he found it. Dr. Primrose, who was admitted to be an expert, testified, among other things not necessary to be stated in order to point the exception, that the bread, the dough, and the flour were given him, the same day he went up there, by Emperor Rouse. Witness took the bread, put it in his hand satchel, and carried it to his office, and then to the drug store, and examined and tested it. It was the same bread, dough, and flour, and was in the same condition as when witness first got it,--no change in it. "Objection by the defendant as to the things found in the bread," etc., "and exception." Witness found that the bread contained arsenic, a poison that will produce death. Witness could not say how much arsenic was in it. That the bowels and intestines of deceased were both inflamed. That indicates an irritant of some kind. Arsenic would produce such an effect. Also a spot in the stomach that indicated deeper inflammation,--indicated irritant poison of some kind. "Rough on Rats" is an arsenical poison. The witness testified at length on cross examination as to the manner of his analysis of the bread and dough, and his finding arsenic therein; also in the stomach; and of his application of his test to "Rough on Rats," with the same result as his test of the bread and dough. He testified that the bread and dough were kept in his private office; that it is possible for some one to have gone into his office and put arsenic in the bread, but it is barely possible. Witness testified further that he made a second test of the bread and dough just before the term of the court; Dr. Francis Duffy, a witness for the state, testified, after he was admitted to be an expert, that he examined the bread and dough in Dr. Primrose's possession. He explained the tests applied by him. That the test made in February did not produce results fully satisfactory, "The only exception to the admission or rejection of evidence was that the court admitted the testimony of the medical experts as to the poison found in the bread and dough." It was a case of circumstantial evidence,--this circumstance of the bread and dough being found at the house where the prisoner and deceased had lived, on the day after the alleged homicide. The application of the tests by experts, and the finding of the poison, was relied upon by the state as one of the material facts necessary to be proved in its evidence.
We can see no error in the admission of the testimony objected to especially when taken in connection with the charge of his honor to the jury, for he instructed them that, before they could consider the testimony of the experts as to the analysis of the bread, flour, and dough at all, they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the bread and flour and dough analyzed were parts of the same of which deceased ate, and that caused her sickness and death, the same that Emperor Rouse gave to Dr. Primrose, and that it had not been tampered with in any respect, nor any poison placed in or upon it, after it came into the hands of the witnesses, and before the same was analyzed; and the jury may consider, and it is their duty to consider, that the bread, etc., was not sealed up, but was placed in the hand satchel, and there remained some time before it was analyzed. In other parts of his charge the presiding judge had fully left to the jury to pass upon the truth of all the evidence of the witnesses, and there was no exception taken to the charge.
The prisoner's counsel presented the following prayer for instruction, which was declined, and the prisoner excepted "(1) That, in that there is no evidence to show where Susan Croom procured the flour and bread which Emperor Rouse testified that he delivered to Dr. R. S. Primrose, the jury shall not consider the evidence admitted on this point." By a careful perusal of the testimony as set out in the "case" we are unable to find anything to indicate that Susan Croom, another witness, had any connection with the finding of the flour, bread, etc., by Emperor Rouse, as testified to by said Rouse, and therefore we must conclude that the presiding judge was warranted in declining to give the...
To continue reading
Request your trial