State v. Bryson
| Citation | 2 Win. 86,60 N.C. 476 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Decision Date | 31 December 1864 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. J. R. BRYSON. |
The declarations and admissions of a party to a suit, civil or criminal, pertinent to the issue, may be given in evidence against him by the other party.
It is not the belief, simply, of a man that he is about to be stricken, which will justify him in striking first, but his belief founded on reasonable grounds of apprehonsion.
One who seeks a fight, or provokes another to strike him, cannot justify returning the blow on the ground of self-defence.
This was an indictment for an assault and battery by the defendant on L. S. Gash, tried nefore READE, J., at Fall Term, 1864, of Henderson Superior Court.
The State offered evidence tending to show that the defendant met Gash in the street and knocked him down with his walking cane, without provocation. The defendant offered evidence tending to show, that at the time he struck Gash, Gash had a knife in his hand, held up in a striking position at the distance of four or six feet from him. The State offered evidence tending to show that a short time before the fight, the defendant said he intended to give Gash a caning. The defendant objected to his declarations being given in evidence, but the Court admitted them.
The defendant's counsel asked the Court to charge the jury, that if defendant, at the time he struck Gash, believed that Gash was about to strike him with the knife, that then the defendant had a right to strike him first. The Court declined so to charge, but instructed the jury, that if defendant struck Gash, he was guilty, unless he struck in self-defence: that if the jury believed, that the defendant had good reason to believe, and did believe, that Gash was about to strike him, that then the defendant had the right to strike him first, unless the jury believed that the defendant sought the fight, or provoked Gash to attack him; in which case, the defendant would be guilty.
Verdict--guilty and judgment accordingly, from which defendant appealed.
Attorney General for the State.
W. H. Bailey for the defendant .
This case is brought before us upon exceptions to the ruling of the Court below, in a matter of evidence, and also for the refusal of the Judge to give certain instructions asked for, and for giving other instructions alledged to be erroneous.
1. We are not informed of any ground upon which the evidence is deemed inadmissible. Ordinarily, in both civil and criminal causes, the declarations and admissions of one party may be introduced by the other. There are exceptions to this rule, but the case before us does not fall under any of these exceptions.
The defendant was indicted for a battery on L. S. Gash, and, on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaines
...him as an admission.' Stansbury N.C. Evidence § 167 (2d ed. 1963); State v. Woolard, 260 N.C. 133, 132 S.E.2d 364 (1963); State v. Bryson, 60 N.C. 476 (1864). Here, Patricia Hill testified concerning defendant: 'He said he was going to rape me. . . . He said that he raped somebody. . . . He......
-
State v. Anderson
...bodily harm. State v. Maney, 194 N.C. 34, 138 S.E. 441; State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 265, 80 S.E. 1075; State v. Belk, 76 N.C. 10; State v. Bryson, 60 N.C. 476; State v. Davis, 52 N.C. 52; Taylor v. State, 17 Ala.App. 508, 85 So. 877; People v. Lopez, 238 App.Div. 619, 265 N.Y.S. 211; State v. ......
-
State v. Anderson
...bodily harm. State v. Maney, 194 N.C. 34, 138 S.E. 441; State v. Allen, 166 N.C. 265, 80 S.E. 1075; State v. Belk, 76 N.C. 10; State v. Bryson, 60 N.C. 476; State v. Davis, 52 N.C. 52; Taylor State, 17 Ala.App. 508, 85 So. 877; People v. Lopez, 238 A.D. 619, 265 N.Y.S. 211; State v. Woodard......
-
State v. Woolard, 3
...in connection with other facts, to prove his guilt of the offense charged, are competent against him in a criminal action. State v. Bryson, 60 N.C. 476; State v. Lawhorn, 88 N.C. 634; State v. Abernethy, 220 N. C. 226, 17 S.E.2d 25; State v. Ragland, 227 N.C. 162, 41 S.E.2d 285; State v. Ar......