State v. Carpenter

Decision Date14 December 1949
Docket NumberNo. 580.,580.
Citation56 S.E.2d 713,231 N.C. 229
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE. v. CARPENTER.

N. L. Carpenter was convicted in the Superior Court of Richmond County, Susie Sharpe, Special Judge, of assault inflicting serious injury, and he appealed.

The Supreme Court, Seawell, J, held that the evidence justified submission of case to jury, but that trial court erred in giving instruction to return a verdict of not guilty only in event jury did not believe the evidence of defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, and ordered a new trial.

The defendant-appellant was tried in the Special County Court of Richmond County on a warrant charging him as follows: "C. H. Holland on Inf. & Belief, being duly sworn, complains and says that at and in said County of Richmond, Rockingham Township, on or about 11 Aug. 1948 & at various other times in past 12 mts. N. L. Carpenter did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously assault and hang Clarence Lett by his arms on the wall for seventy (70) hours in the N. C. Prison Camp #607 and did inflict cruel and unusual punishment upon him, contrary to the form of the statute and against the peace and dignity of the State."

He was convicted in that court and appealed to the Superior Court of Richmond County. When the case was called in the Superior Court and before the jury was impanelled, or entry of a plea, the defendant moved to quash the warrant and dismiss the case (a) because he had been tried in the lower court and found guilty of "cruel and unusual punishment, " and there was no such crime; and (b) that the lower court did not have jurisdiction and since the jurisdiction of the Superior Court was derivative, the case should be dismissed.

The court denied this motion and defendant excepted. Thereupon the Solicitor moved to strike out the words "cruel and unusual punishment upon him, " and insert in lieu thereof, "serious and painful injuries upon the person of Clarence Lett, " so that the warrant should read, after the amendment, "did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously assault and hang Clarence Lett by hisarms on the wall for seventy (70) hours in the N. C. Prison Camp No. 607 and did inflict serious and painful injuries upon the person of Clarence Lett." Defendant objected to the amendment as changing the nature of the crime. The amendment was allowed and defendant excepted.

Clarence Lett, the prisoner upon whom the assault was alleged to have been made, testified in substance as follows:

The witness was in August, 1948, and several months previously, serving time as a prisoner in the prison camp in Richmond, a term of 18 months for a misdemeanor. Carpenter was Superintendent of the prison camp at the time he was there. Some time in August, 1948, a punishment was administered to the witness by Mr. Carpenter. The witness and other prisoners were working on the highway and ditching along the road and a beer truck came along, and the witness said, "I would like to have me a case of beer, " and one of the prisoners said, "Budweiser is what you need--makes you wiser, "--"and the guards loaded us up and carried us in and hung us up for it. Captain Carpenter had me hung up."

Some time in the first of the spring Carpenter came through the mess hall of the prison camp and stated that he was making new rules and that if prisoners were caught talking on the road they were going to be hung up and punished for it. The conversation happened after he had been told that. They were carried into camp after the beer truck passed by.

The witness saw Mr. Carpenter the afternoon on which they were brought in. He came in there after Capt. Meeks had already hung the witness and others up and talked to another prisoner and hung him up. It was all for the same thing.

By being "hung up" the witness stated that "you had to stand with your hands out before you, when they were handcuffed to the bar." Standing, the hands were about even with the chest. "The bars we were handcuffed to are about like these over here in jail--regular cell bars. They are round, little ridge running down each side. They are far enough apart for you to get your arms through all the way. The handcuffs were strapped around my wrists. There was one bar between my arms. There are cross-bars to these (cell) bars. This cross-bar is a sheet of steel"--(about a thickness of a few inches)--"that runs across the bars about waist high from the floor. That's the highest bar under my arms."

"My wrists were handcuffed on the other side of the bars and I was left standing there for a certain period of time with my feet on the floor. I could take the weight of my body off my feet by pressing my arms on the cross-bar, but how long could I stand there with it on my arms? I stood there from Wednesday to Saturday and went to work Saturday morning. I worked every day after I was taken down. I could get my arms through the bars up to my elbows. I could get my elbows through the bars. I could get almost to my shoulders through the bars, --could get as far as my head and the rest of my body would let me. My arms could get through the bars until my entire body was resting against the bars but that wouldn't have anything to do with my feet. My feet did not leave the floor at any time. I was not suspended at any time so that my feet were above the floor."

"I went to work on Saturday morning when the squad went out, about 7:00. I was not given any breakfast before I left. I was not released from the bars Friday night; me and Whitey Williams stood up there until Saturday morning. I was not released around eight o'clock Friday night. I did not sleep in my bunk all Friday night until I was awakened the next morning, when I was released from the cuffed position he just uncuffed me and I got my water and walked around for 15 minutes. The night watchman lets us down and sometimes Cap'n Meeks. There are four or five different night watchmen. Cap'n Arnett was one of them in August. He was the one that released me on Thursday at night.

"I went to work on Saturday and worked as long as any of the rest of the squad. We got in camp at 12:00. I did not make any complaint about swollen legs or feeling bad to the guards or foremen. Mr. Car-penter never put his hands on me when I was cuffed to the bars; he came through there one day and I had my foot set up on the bank and he told me if I didn't get it down he would slap it down. He did not put his hands on me at any time."

"Nobody took the trouble to examine my feet. My legs were swollen up after I was taken down two or three days. I was brought in from work on this Wednesday about three o'clock and immediately hung up right after we come in. This was the same day that the talking out on the highway took place."

Carl Holland, a witness for the State, testified that he was Sheriff of Richmond County and that he had investigated the alleged assault at the Richmond County prison camp. He had a conversation with Carpenter with respect to Lett, --the punishment administered to him. Carpenter carried him out into the cells and showed him how the punishment was administered. While talking about the indictments which had been brought against Meeks and Carpenter, Carpenter stated that Meeks had nothing to do with it; that Meeks administered the punishment under his direction.

This witness stated that he exhibited to him the prisoner at that time handcuffed to the bars; that he was in a crouched position, partially on his legs and knees.

Carpenter said that the punishment was not administered in the presence of a doctor; that he did not have a doctor unless he thought it was necessary. The floor was a cement floor.

At the close of the State's evidence the defendant demurred thereto and moved for judgment as of nonsuit, which was denied, and defendant excepted.

The defendant offered in evidence an authenticated copy of the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Management of Prisoners under the Control of the State Highway and Public Works Commission, " and these were received as evidence and identified as defendant's Exhibit A. Excerpts therefrom are quoted infra.

The defendant Carpenter testified that he was at the time mentioned employed by the State Highway & Public Works Commission, and was now so employed, in the capacity of superintendent and manager of prisoners in the Richmond County prison camp. That he was responsible for the conduct and keep of the prisoners at the camp and employed the prison guards; and had the responsibility for disciplining of prisoners. He testified that on August 11, 1948, he had occasion to impose disciplinary punishment on Clarence Lett; that Clarence Lett was assigned to the road gang working on the highway under the supervision of guards and State maintenance foremen. The prisoner Lett was sent to the camp by the guard; he was sent in at 20 minutes to 4:00 o'clock on Wednesday, August 12. As a result of the report from the guard, the witness gave orders to his steward to handcuff Lett to the bars. Witness introduced the report that he had made with reference to the incident, which report was entitled, "Grade Demotion and Punishment Report, " and shows that the punishment was for "unsatisfactory work and disorderly conduct on the roads, " and contained the punishment recommended with grade demotion. Witness' recommendation was "48 to 60 hours and demote to C. Grade." Below the report there was a printed form for grade demotion and the statement, "Handcuffed to bars 30 to 60 hours without food, but plenty of water. Give the prisoners a fifteen minute rest period each five hours and do not handcuff the arms above the waistline."

The witness stated that he was not present when Lett was handcuffed and did not see him; did not touch him; did not release him at any time but gave instructions to release him periodically. The witness further testified that he had given instructions to the night guards Arnett and Miles to release the prisoner every five hours for 15 minutes. The witness stated...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State v. Fenner
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 24, 1965
    ...with which defendant was originally charged. G.S. § 7-149, Rule 12; State v. Thompson, 233 N.C. 345, 64 S.E.2d 157; State v. Carpenter, 231 N.C. 229, 56 S.E.2d 713; State v. Brown, 225 N.C. 22, 33 S.E.2d 121. Defendant contends that this general rule does not apply here for the reason that ......
  • State v. Moore
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 11, 1957
    ...152 N.C. 793, 67 S.E. 480; State v. Johnson, 188 N.C. 591, 125 S.E. 183; State v. Wilson, 221 N. C. 365, 20 S.E.2d 273; State v. Carpenter, 231 N.C. 229, 56 S.E.2d 713; State v. Wilson, 237 N.C. 746, 75 S.E.2d 924; State v. McHone, 243 N.C. 231, 90 S.E.2d 536. The case is distinguishable fr......
  • State v. Broome, 172
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 22, 1967
    ...The trial judge in the Superior Court had discretionary power to permit the amendment to the warrant as set forth above. State v. Carpenter, 231 N.C. 229, 56 S.E.2d 713; State v. Grimes, 226 N.C. 523, 39 S.E.2d 394; State v. Lewis, 177 N.C. 555, 98 S.E. 309; 2 Strong's N.C. Index, Indictmen......
  • State v. Thompson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1951
    ...the Superior Court to allow amendments to warrants is very comprehensive. State v. Stone, 231 N.C. 324, 56 S.E.2d 675; State v. Carpenter, 231 N.C. 229, 56 S.E.2d 713; State v. Bowser, 230 N.C. 330, 53 S.E.2d 282; State v. Wilson, 227 N.C. 43, 40 S.E.2d 449; State v. Brown, 225 N.C. 22, 33 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT