State v. Caldwell
Decision Date | 09 March 1921 |
Docket Number | (No. 91.) |
Citation | 106 S.E. 139 |
Parties | STATE. v. CALDWELL et al. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wayne County; Devin, Judge.
Harry Caldwell, alias Harry Chaplan, alias Henry Williams; Jesse Foster; Frank Williams; George Bearsall; and Jim Hill were convicted of murder, and they appeal. No error.
The facts in evidence on the part of the state tended to show that in the latter part of November, seemingly Sunday the 21st, defendants were in the car of defendant Foster, and between 4 and 5 o'clock p. m. went to the store of deceased, four miles east of Goldsboro, N. C, and were seen standing about the gas tank buying a small amount of gasoline; that this was paid for by defendant Caldwell, handing to Jones a §20 bill, and that in making the change Jones displayed a large roll of money, which he took from his pocket; that when this gasoline was bought and paid for all of defendants were standing around the gas tank, and could see the money shown by deceased; that on the same night between 7 and 8 o'clock, when Jones and his wife and three of their children, a colored boy who helped about the house, and a white boy who was crippled and had to move with crutches were sitting in a front room of the Jones residence, which was a short distance from the store, these five defendants in the car drove past the house into the back yard, and came up on the back porch; that defendant Foster came into the room where Jones and the family, etc., were, and told deceased that some one out there wished to see him, and Foster then shook hands with the colored boy and engaged him in conversation; that Jones went out and down the hallway towards the back door, there being at the time a lighted lamp in the hall, and when he had gotten near the back door and about opposite or just beyond the dining room door, some one of the party, shown to be defendant Caldwell called to him, "Throw up your hands!" and almost immediately fired the pistol, inflicting a mortal wound, from which he died in about 30 minutes after he was shot. Mrs. Jones, wife of the deceased, said that all she heard was, "Throw up your hands!" The colored boy testified the call was, "Throw up your hands or I will kill you!" When the shot fired, Jesse Foster went out and towards the back door, where the party had entered, and they all ran off. The colored boy, the helper, went out that way in the endeavor to see who they were, and the cripple had also fled from the room, probably going out the front door, the theory of the state being that the flight of defendants was caused by the unexpected appearance of the additional members of the household. Only three of the Jones children were present the eldest of the three being 8, their oldest child, aged! 11, spending the night with his grandparents.
The course and effect of the bullet tended to confirm the state's evidence that the person who did the shooting was standing in the hall at the time and not very far in the back door.
The defendants were not examined as witnesses in the trial, but without objection their statements, taken at the coroner's inquest, were put in evidence and read to the jury, these statements tending to show that defendants had gone to the house for the purpose of getting whisky, and were in the dining room where Jones had brought the whisky, and while they were in their the defendant Caldwell, who claimed to be a detective, drew his pistol saying, "You are all under arrest;" that all of them threw up their hands except Jones, and, he making some move towards his pocket as if for a weapon, Caldwell fired and killed him. No authority or justification for this claim of being an official on the part of Caldwell was shown in evidence.
Under a clear and comprehensive charge from the court presenting every phase of the case and permissible defenses arising on the testimony the jury rendered a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree against defendants Caldwell and Foster, and of murder in the second degree against the other three defendants. Judgment in accordance with the verdict, and defendants excepted and appealed.
E. A. Humphrey and Hood & Hood, all of Goldsboro, for appellants Hill and Pearsall.
W. S. O'B. Robinson, of Goldsboro, for appellants Foster and Williams.
N. D. White, of Goldsboro, for appellant Caldwell.
J. S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
It is chiefly objected to the validity of this conviction that by reason of the action of a lawless mob, and its hostile demonstrations towards them, the defendants were deprived of that fair and impartial trial guaranteed them by the Constitution and laws of the state, but on the record the exception must be overruled. As this is the principal objection insisted on for the defendants, and the occurrence and attendant circumstances at the time and after aroused very great interest and extended comment, we consider it not amiss to incorporate the findings of the trial judge concerning them, which have been duly stated and made a part of the record, in terms as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miller v. Commonwealth
...by the bystanders. State v. Murphy, 292 Mo. 275, 237 S.W. 529; Grammer v. State, 103 Neb. 325, 172 N.W. 41, 174 N.W. 507; State v. Caldwell, 181 N.C. 519, 106 S.E. 139. It will be presumed that the jury was controlled by the court's admonition and that no prejudice resulted. Rowlett v. Com.......
-
State v. Sutkus
...Krauss et al. v. Cope, 180 Mass. 22, 61 N.E. 220; Annawan Mills, Inc., v. Mangene, 237 Mass. 451, 454, 130 N.E. 77. In State v. Caldwell, 181 N. C. 519, 106 S.E. 139, it was held not error to exclude from the jury room statements of respondents made before a In People v. Dowdigan et al., 67......
-
Miller v. Commonwealth
... ... Com., 69 S.W ... 765, 24 Ky. Law Rep. 657; Cartwright v. Com., 196 ... Ky. 6, 244 S.W. 55; Wood v. Com., 229 Ky. 459, 17 ... S.W.2d 443; State v. Armstrong, 106 Mo. 395, 16 S.W ... 604, 13 L. R. A. 419, 27 Am. St. Rep. 361 ... The ... appellant having admitted in his ... State v. Murphy, ... 292 Mo. 275, 237 S.W. 529; Grammer v. State, 103 ... Neb. 325, 172 N.W. 41, 174 N.W. 507; State v ... Caldwell, 181 N.C. 519, 106 S.E. 139. It will be ... presumed that the jury was controlled by the court's ... admonition and that no prejudice resulted ... ...
- State v. Caldwell