State v. Broom
| Decision Date | 25 November 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 505.,505. |
| Citation | 22 S.E.2d 926,222 N.C. 324 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. BROOM. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mecklenburg County; W. H. S. Burgwyn, Special Judge.
Walter Broom was convicted of murder in the first degree and murder in the second degree, and he appeals.
New trial.
The defendant was charged with murder in two cases. In the one he was indicted for the murder of Mrs. Ruby Middlebrook, and in the other for the murder of Mrs. Eula Harkey. The two homicides occurred at the same time and place, and death resulted from gun shot wounds admittedly inflicted by the defendant. The defendant pleaded self-defense. By consent the two cases were consolidated for trial.
The jury returned verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree in the case of Mrs. Middlebrook, and guilty of murder in the second degree in the case of Mrs. Harkey. From judgments imposing sentence of death in the one case, and thirty years in prison in the other, the defendant appealed.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen, and George B. Patton and Hughes J. Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen, for the State.
Jake F. Newell and J. M. Scarborough both of Charlotte, for defendant.
The slaying by the defendant of the two women named in the bills of indictment, on the occasion alleged, was not controverted. The defendant on the stand admitted the shooting and killing of both, but pleaded self-defense in each case. His counsel also offered evidence tending to show that the defendant was not mentally responsible at the time.
On his appeal to this Court the defendant assigns error in the denial by the trial judge of his motion for judgment of nonsuit as to the charge of first degree murder, but an examination of the record indicates the correctness of this ruling. Likewise the action of the judge in discharging one of the jurors, upon finding he was incapacitated, and substituting the thirteenth juror in his stead on the panel, was timely and proper, and in accord with the statute. Ch. 103, Public Laws 1931 amended by Ch. 35, Public Laws 1939. State v. Dalton, 206 N.C. 507, 174 S.E. 422.
However, we think there was error in the ruling of the court as to the admission in evidence of certain exhibits in the case over the objection of the defendant.
During the cross-examination of the defendant, when he was on the stand as a witness in his own behalf, the solicitor, for the purpose of impeaching his credibility, asked him if he had not been engaged in committing abortions on women, and obtaining money from such unlawful practices. This the defendant denied. Then the solicitor, showing certain articles and instruments, asked him if these were not instruments used for producing abortions. This the defendant also denied. The defendant admitted ownership or possession of some of the articles about which he wasquestioned, but denied that others were his. The instruments were then offered in evidence as State's exhibits, and were admitted as such over the objection of the defendant. The defendant in apt time excepted.
There was no error in permitting the solicitor to ask the defendant, when on the stand as a witness,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips, 509
...or any other witness for the defense when it cross-examines him as to collateral matters for the purpose of impeachment. State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926; State v. Jordan, 207 N.C. 460, 177 S.E. 333; State v. Sauls, 199 N.C. 193, 154 S.E. 28. The question insinuating that the mal......
-
State v. Hunt
...defendant under such circumstances ought to to stand.' To similar effect, See State v. Gavin, 232 N.C. 323, 59 S.E.2d 823; State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926. A more recent case reversing a conviction upon similar reasoning is State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E.2d 59. In Aycoth......
-
State v. Cutshall
...are generally conclusive and may not be contradicted by extrinsic testimony. State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E.2d 342; State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926; State v. Gardner, 226 N.C. 310, 37 S.E.2d 913; State v. Jordan, 207 N.C. 460, 177 S.E. 333; Stansbury, North Carolina Evide......
-
State v. Poolos
...Morris, 109 N.C. 820, 13 S.E. 877; State v. Cagle, 114 N.C. 835, 19 S.E. 766; State v. Wilson, 217 N.C. 123, 7 S.E.2d 11; State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926; State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E.2d 230. Furthermore, the question was not propounded for the purpose of showing bias, in......