State v. Bonner
| Citation | 23 S.E.2d 45,222 N.C. 344 |
| Decision Date | 02 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | 577. |
| Parties | STATE v. BONNER et al. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Wm. F. Jones, of Whiteville, for appellant Bonner.
E.M. Toon and Detlaw Sanderson, both of Whiteville, for appellant Fowler.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J. Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Upon the record on this appeal the appellants contend stressfully, and we think with propriety, that each of them was prejudiced by the denial of their motions for separate trials. While at the time the motions were made and overruled, it doubtless did not appear that the State, in order to connect defendants with alleged murder of Ira L. Godwin, relied upon alleged confessions separately made by the defendants, which would be competent as evidence only against the defendant making the confession, and incompetent as evidence against any co-defendant who was not present at the time the alleged confession was made, and who did not by word or conduct acquiesce therein. However, in view of the fact that in each of the alleged confessions incriminating statements were made against other defendants, we are unable to conclude that such incriminating statements were not prejudicial to such others when it became apparent that the State relied solely upon such confessions for the conviction of the defendants. As stated in State v. Cotton, 218 N.C. 577, 12 S.E.2d 246, 247: "Without questioning the power of the court to consolidate cases for trial in proper instances, and its discretionary authority ordinarily to deal with an application for a severance *** it would seem that a mistrial and severance at the close of all the evidence would have been in order".
As the case goes back for new trial, and as the record on appeal does not disclose in full the evidence upon which the court ruled as to competency of the alleged confessions, we make no decision thereon. However, we call attention to the case of State v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 771, 182 S.E. 643, and cases therein cited, as well as other decisions on the subject.
Also, as there is to be a new trial we deem it unnecessary to deal with exception to form of judgment.
New trial.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tucker
...A statement is inadmissible as to a codefendant only if it is made outside his presence and incriminates him. See State v. Bonner, 222 N.C. 344, 345, 23 S.E.2d 45, 46 (1942); see also State v. King, 287 N.C. 645, 654, 215 S.E.2d 540, 550 (1975), judgment vacated in part, 428 U.S. 903, 96 S.......
-
State v. Fox, 83
...113, 108 S.E.2d 128; Annot., Right to severance where codefendant has incriminated himself, 54 A.L.R.2d 830 (1957). In State v. Bonner, 222 N.C. 344, 23 S.E.2d 45, this Court held that a joint trial had resulted in prejudice to the defendants and ordered a severance. The two defendants were......
-
Millar v. Town of Wilson
... ... political, legislative or public in nature and performed for ... the public good in behalf of the State, rather than for ... itself, comes within the class of governmental functions ... When, however, the activity is commercial or chiefly for the ... ...
-
State v. Samuel
...S.E.2d 797 (1975). While recognizing this rule, defendant argues that his case should be an exception as was true in State v. Bonner, 222 N.C. 344, 23 S.E.2d 45 (1942). We find it easy to distinguish the cases. In Bonner, four defendants were charged individually and in separate bills of in......