State,v,brabham.

• Decision Date: 19 May 1891
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: State v Brabham.

13 S.E. 217

108 N.C. 793

StatevBrabham.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 19, 1891.

Homicide—Evidence—Circumstances—Instructions.

1. On an indictment for murder, where the

evidence for the state is entirely circumstantial, evidence is admissible as to the unnatural behavior of defendant shortly after the homicide took place.

3. Where it is shown that deceased was killed with an iron coupling-pin, and a witness has testified that he saw a man who looked like defendant drop the pin near the place of the homicide, and shortly after its occurrence, evidence is admissible that such a pin was seen near defendant's house the day before the homicide, which shortly disappeared therefrom.

8. Where a witness, B., at the trial Identified a coat as having been worn by defendant, another witness is competent to testify that B. identified the coat at the guard-house after defendant's arrest, though B. himself was not asked whether he did so.

4. A statement by the court that defendant had offered no evidence to contradict the testimony of the state's witnesses, which is true, is relieved of any possible prejudicial effect by the further statement that it is aquestion for the jury whether there is any contradiction between the state's witnesses.

Appeal from criminal court, Mecklenburg county; Meares, Judge.

McCall & Bailey, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

Shepherd, J. The first exception is addressed to the admission of testimony as to the manner of the prisoner shortly after the commission of the homicide. The testimony tended to show that the homicide was committed between 11 and 12 o'clock on Saturday night, the 11th of April, 1891; that about 12 o'clock of the same night the prisoner went to the room of the witnesses Wyche and Davis; that his actions there were unnatural; that he spoke hurriedly, and in a low tone, and that his hand trembled and he seemed nervous. Such testimony alone would raise but a slight conjecture of the prisoner's guilt, but, taken in connection with the other facts in evidence, was very clearly relevant. The evidence offered by the state was entirely circumstantial in its nature, and in such cases facts which are in themselves of but trifling significance maybe-come of serious import, in view of their relation to other circumstances attending the transaction. "Everything calculated to elucidate the transaction is admissible, since the conclusion depends upon a number of links, which alone are weak, but, taken together, are strong and able to conclude." McCann v. State, 13 Smedes & M. 471. As bearing directly upon the particular point under consideration, we cite the case of Campbell v. State, 23 Ala. 69. See. also, Whart. Crim. Law, 3520.

The second exception is to the testimony of the witness Griffith, " that the [coupling] pin was found on the sidewalk near Peinberton's house, where the prisoner boarded." There was evidence tending to show that the mortal wound wasinflicted with an iron coupling-pin, which was found on the floor near the deceased. The witness stated that this coupling-pin was like the one seen by him on Saturday morning lying in the grass 23 steps from the boarding-house of the prisoner, and that on Sunday he looked for it, and it had disappeared. One R. J. Johnson testified that on the night of the 11th of April he came by Mocca's store, and saw a colored man standing against the window with his hand behind him, and that he saw him drop a piece of iron about the length of the coupling pin introduced in evidence, and that he took it up and wrapped it in a whitish colored cloth of some kind, and put it in his pocket. This witness also stated that he did not kr: ow that the prisoner was the man he saw, but that he had the same color and height, wore a brown overcoat, and "looked in appearance like the prisoner." It was also in evidence that a handkerchief, soiled apparently with rust, was found in the pocket of the prisoner's overcoat, and that the pocket of the overcoat was "torn or ripped." For the reasons given in passing upon the first exception, we think that the testimony was admissible, and should have been submitted to the jury. State v. Christmas, 101 N. C. 749, 8 S. E. Rep. 361; State v. Bruce, 100N. C. 792. 11 S. E. Rep. 475. In this connection, we will state that the sixth exception, as to the admissibility of the testimony of Johnson, is plainly untenable, and should also be overruled.

The third exception (the only one argued in the brief of the prisoner's counsel) is that the court "allowed [the] witness Baker to testify that Benny Mocca identified the coat at the police office [or guardhouse] without Benny having been first asked as to the fact, i, e., whether he did so identify it." Benny Mocca, the son of the deceased, had been examined, and testified that the overcoat produced upon the trial was the same as that worn by the prisoner at the shop of his deceased father on the night of the homicide. This overcoat was identified by other witnesses as the one taken from the valise of the prisoner, and identified by Benny at the guard-house in the presence of the witness Baker and the prisoner. Whatever may be the ruling in other states upon the subject, it is well settled in North Carolina that such testimony as Baker's is...