State v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 509 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. THOMAS P. BOWMAN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for Murder, removed from Rockingham and tried at December Special Term, 1877, of GUILFORD Superior Court, before Buxton, J.
That portion of the case which constitutes the basis of the decision of this Court, is sufficiently set out in the opinion delivered by THE CHIEF JUSTICE. Verdict of guilty. Appeal by the defendant.
Attorney General and Messrs. Boyd & Reid, for the State .
Messrs. J. T. Morehead and J. E. Boyd, for the defendant .
The prisoner is charged with the crime of murder in administering poison to his wife, and upon the trial was found guilty. Judgment of death was pronounced, from which he appealed to this Court.
The case presented for our review contains a full and minute account of the trial, the evidence adduced for the State, the exceptions taken for the prisoner, and the rulings of the Court during its progress. The prisoner offered no evidence. The exceptions are numerous and were elaborately argued upon the hearing before us by the Attorney General and the counsel for the prisoner, and their researches and citation of authorities would have greatly lessened our labors had we been called on to investigate the various questions discussed. But we are relieved of the necessity of doing this by the view which we take of the case.
Many witness were examined and testified to the circumstances attending the death of the deceased, the symptoms developed during the last moments of life and immediately after its extinction, the declaration of the deceased that she was poisoned, the two disinterments and examinations of the body, the discovery of strychnine in some of the internal organs in a chemical analysis of their contents made by Prof. Redd, a witness in the cause, the tests resorted to by him to ascertain and prove the nature and efficacy of the poison, and other facts relied on to establish the prisoner's guilt. Three physicians were present during the trial and heard the evidence and were examined as experts. The same questions were propounded to each, the same objections interposed by prisoner's counsel and overruled, and substantially the same testimony given by all, and it is therefore only necessary to consider the exception to the evidence of one of them.
Dr. R. H. Gregory, introduced as an expert, testified as follows;
On the part of the State the following questions were then propounded, which with the answers were objected to by the prisoner but allowed by the Court:-- 1. “Have you heard the statements of the witnesses as to the circumstances immediately preceding her being taken sick, the appearance of the body immediately after death, its appearance subsequent and before interment, the condition of her limbs and members, the account given by the deceased of her manner of death, her asking to have her feet uncrossed, and the manner in which she gripped him and her child, and have you heard the testimony of Mr. Redd as to his analysis and its results, and from them can you as a physician form an opinion as to the cause of her death?” The witness answered, “Yes.”
2. “In giving answer, do you exclude from your consideration the evidence of other circumstances in the nature of moral evidence in the case?” The witness answered, “I do.”
3. “What in your opinion was the cause of her death?” The witness answered, “I believe it was strychnine.”
The prisoner excepts to this course of examination and to the action of the Court in permitting the opinion of the witness to be given to the jury. The correctness of this ruling is presented for our review, and after a careful and deliberate consideration we have come to the conclusion that the evidence ought not to have been received.
The opinions of those who are skilled in any department of art or science, resting upon undisputed facts and within the scope of their special calling, are not only competent to be heard by the jury, but often greatly assist in the formation of a correct judgment upon matters they are called on to investigate. The superior knowledge of the expert is frequently required in the conduct of judicial examination of subjects beyond the reach of common observation. But this evidence has its restrictions, and must never be allowed to invade the rightful and exclusive province of the jury in drawing their own conclusions from the testimony, of the credibility of which they alone must judge. It is their duty to hear and pass upon the evidence, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Reilly
...63, 18 N.W. 562; State v. Scott, 41 Minn. 365, 43 N.W. 62; People v. McElvaine, 121 N.Y. 250, 18 Am. St. Rep. 820, 24 N.E. 465; State v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 509; State Coleman, 20 S.C. 441; Bennett v. State, 57 Wis. 69, 46 Am. Rep. 26, 14 N.W. 912; People v. Vanderhoof, 71 Mich. 158, 39 N.W. 28......
-
State v. Smoak
... ... Martin v. Knitting Co., 189 N.C. 644, 127 S.E. 688; ... McManus v. Seaboard Air Line R. Co., 174 N.C. 735, ... 94 S.E. 455; Pigford v. Norfolk Southern Railroad ... Co., 160 N.C. 93, 75 S.E. 860, 44 L.R. A.,N.S., 865; ... Ray v. Ray, 98 N.C. 566, 4 S.E. 526; State v ... Bowman, 78 N.C. 509. It was not essential that the ... hypothetical question include all the evidence bearing upon ... the alleged facts. Godfrey v. Western Carolina Power ... Co., 190 N.C. 24, 128 S.E. 485 ... The ... evidence in regard to the defendant's first wife, Georgia ... ...
-
Godfrey v. Western Carolina Power Co.
...drew no inference from the testimony, and merely expressed his professional opinion upon an assumed finding of facts by the jury. State v. Bowman, 78 N.C. 509; State Cole, 94 N.C. 958; Summerlin v. Carolina & N.W. R. Co., 133 N.C. 554, 45 S.E. 898; Brewer v. Ring, supra; Raulf v. Light & Po......
-
Brewer v. Ring
...8 Watts & S. (Pa.) 376; Heath v. Glisan, 3 Or. 67; Roberts v. Johnson, 58 N.Y. 613, 615; Mayo v. Wright, 63 Mich. 32, 29 N.W. 832; State v. Bowman, supra; Sawyer v. Berthold, Minn. 441, 134 N.W. 120; Sly v. Powell, 87 Kan. 142, 123 P. 881; Taylor v. Kidd, 72 Wash. 18, 129 P. 406. It has bee......