State v. Carrawan

• Decision Date: 25 September 1906
• Citation: 54 S.E. 1002,142 N.C. 575
• Parties: STATE. v. CARRAWAN et al.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

54 S.E. 1002

142 N.C. 575

STATE.

v.CARRAWAN et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Sept. 25, 1906.

1. Criminal Law—Separate Trials —Discretion of Court.

The refusal to grant persons jointly charged with crime a severance is not reviewable except in case of gross abuse.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent. Dig. Criminal Law, § 3050.]

2. Same—Argument of Counsel — Discretion of Court.

The refusal of the court to interfere with the arguments of counsel in a criminal case will not be reviewed except in case of gross abuse.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 15, Cent Dig. Criminal Law, § 3059.]

3. Same—Trial—Instructions—Applicability to Evidence.

On a trial for stealing a raft of timber, the evidence showed that a raft had been stolen on a river at some time between the 3d and 12th of March, and that from March 13th to April 1st, at different times, some of the defendants had sold logs in the neighborhood, which were identified as a part of the stolen raft. The raft had been tied up at a point on the river on account of high water, and when the water subsided, part of the raft rested on the bank. A witness testified that when defendants were rolling in the logs they quit work on seeing a steamboat coming up the river. Held, that an instruction that it would not be sufficient to support a conviction to show that defendants or any of them took some logs floating on the river and unrafted was properly refused as not applicable to the evidence.

Appeal from Superior Court, Craven County; Shaw, Judge.

J. T. Carrawan and others were convicted of larceny, and they appeal. Affirmed.

D. L. Ward, for appellants.

W. D. McIver and the Attorney General, for the State.

HOKE, J. We find no error in the record or case on appeal which requires or permits that a new trial be awarded the defendants or either of them. The refusal of the court to grant them a severance is not reviewable except in case of gross abuse, and no such abuse appears in the present case. State v. Oxendine, 107 N. C. 783, 12 S. E. 573. And the same may be said as to the exception noted in response to the comments of counsel. State v. Horner, 139 N. C. 603, 52 S. E. 136.

It was chiefly urged for error on the part of the defendants that the trial court had refused the following prayer for instructions: "In order to support an indictment for stealing a raft of logs, it must appear that the logs were rafted and taken, and it will not be sufficient to show that the defendants or any of them took some logs floating on the river, and unrafted." The case on appeal states that the court below "declined the prayer as not being applicable to the case and the evidence therein;" and in this ruling we concur.

It may be a correct position that on an indictment for stealing a raft of...