State v. Bowden

• Decision Date: 13 March 1918
• Docket Number: 164.
• Citation: 95 S.E. 145,175 N.C. 794
• Parties: STATE v. BOWDEN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

95 S.E. 145

175 N.C. 794

STATE v. BOWDEN.

No. 164.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 13, 1918

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Calvert, Judge.

Jesse Bowden was convicted of burglary in the first degree, and sentenced to death, and he appeals. Affirmed.

A statement in part of a charge that, to be guilty of burglary in the first degree, it was not necessary that defendant should have entered with intent to rape, but could have formed such purpose after entering, was not prejudicial where it was stated a number of times that the intent must have existed at the time of the entry, and the evidence showed such intent beyond dispute.

Ward & Ward, of New Bern, for appellant.

The Attorney General and R. H. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN J.

The defendant is charged in the bill with a burglarious entry into the dwelling house of one W. A. Wilson, with intent to ravish Evelyn and Mary Edna Wilson, his daughters.

The two exceptions to the evidence are taken to the admission of confessions to one Wood by the defendant while in custody and on the way to prison. The usual preliminary examination of the witness was taken as to the circumstances under which the confessions were made, and it appears clearly that no threats were used, no inducements offered, and no compulsion exercised in order to secure them. It is manifest that, if the witness is believed, the confessions were voluntary. The voluntary confessions of a person charged with crime are not only competent, but are regarded as a high class of evidence. The judges should be careful to see that they are voluntary and free from coercive influences. The objection that defendant was in custody of an officer and on the way to prison is not alone sufficient to render the confessions incompetent. State v. Johnston, 76 N.C. 209; State v. Horner, 139 N.C. 603, 52 S.E. 136, 4 Ann Cas. 841. The motion to nonsuit the state as to the charge of burglary in the first degree was properly overruled.

There is abundant evidence tending to prove that the defendant and one Lee Perkins entered the residence of W. A. Wilson on the night of August 19, 1917, by removing a window sash; that they made their way to the rooms where his daughters were sleeping; that Perkins put his hands upon the bosom and limbs of a young daughter, Ruth; that she called out for her father; that this defendant was in the room where Mary Edna and Evelyn were in bed, and, when about to be detected secreted himself under their bed, and was then discovered and shot at by the father. The state's evidence tends to prove every essential element of burglary in first degree. The ground upon which the motion is based is that there is no evidence of an intent to commit rape upon Evelyn or Edna Wilson. The defendant was caught in the sleeping room and under the bed of his intended victims. His companion had evidently commenced to carry out his purpose upon Ruth in the adjoining room, when her cries frightened defendant, and he crawled under the bed. From this evidence and the circumstances surrounding defendant, it would be difficult to draw any other conclusion than that the intent of defendant and his companion was to commit rape. This is too manifest to need discussion.

The defendant excepts to the following part of the charge:

"Now, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence that at the time he broke and entered that house, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that he did break and enter, that he had felonious intent or purpose of having carnal intercourse with either

...