State v. Casey

• Decision Date: 22 March 1933
• Docket Number: 194.
• Parties: STATE v. CASEY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

168 S.E. 512

204 N.C. 411

STATE v. CASEY.

No. 194.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 22, 1933

Appeal from Superior Court, Lenoir County; Cranmer, Judge.

Herman Casey was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals.

No error.

Where contents of writing come collaterally in question in criminal case, writing need not be produced, but parol evidence of contents is admissible.

At September term, 1930, of Lenoir superior court, the defendant, Herman Casey, was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with murder in the first degree of James C Causey. A verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree on the bill of indictment was returned by the jury, and the defendant was thereupon sentenced by the court below to death by electrocution. The defendant appealed to this court, and no error was found in the trial in the court below. State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 185, 159 S.E. 337.

At August term, 1931, of Lenoir superior court, a motion by the defendant for a new trial was made on the grounds of disqualification of certain jurors by reason of alleged fraud and prejudice, and for newly discovered evidence. This motion was made in the superior court at the next succeeding term following affirmance of judgment on appeal to this court. This motion was refused by the court below, and on appeal to this court, "error and remanded." State v Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Later a new trial was awarded defendant by the court below, and he was tried at October special term, 1932, Lenoir superior court. The verdict was, "Not guilty of murder in the first degree but is guilty of murder in the second degree and beg the mercy of the Court." The judgment of the court below is "Let the defendant be confined in the State Prison at hard labor for an indeterminate sentence of not less than twenty-five nor more than thirty years."

The defendant made numerous exceptions and assignments of error, and appealed to the Supreme Court. The material ones and necessary facts will be considered in the opinion.

Shaw & Jones and W. C. Douglass, all of Kinston, for appellant.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell and W. D. Siler, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

CLARKSON Justice.

The defendant's counsel in his argument of this cause well says that, if there is error in the record on this appeal, it is immaterial how often the defendant has been tried; he is entitled to a trial according to law.

On the first appeal of defendant (201 N.C. 185, 159 S.E. 337), it being a case involving life and death, this court went into the case thoroughly, setting forth the material facts in detail, and discussing fully the questions of law involved. The facts in the present case are practically the same as in the former case. The eyewitness to the killing again testified in substance to what he had testified to on the former trial, and the testimony corroborating this witness did not vary to any extent. On the present trial there was more evidence of corroboration and contradiction.

The defendant contends that on the first trial this case was tried "upon the theory that there was a controversy between Casey and the Atlas Plywood Corp., which had merged with the Utility Mfg. Co., and that Casey killed Causey, who was the man who came in the woods and stopped him from cutting timber and that the Atlas Plywood Corporation was the company holding up the payment of the check." The evidence on the present record, which was admitted as competent, we think is susceptible of the same construction. Broadly there was a controversy between John H. Sutton, Sr., and the Utility Manufacturing Company. The action was to determine the ownership of the land in dispute, upon which defendant and his employees had cut certain timber off of this land and the payment held up.

E. H. Graham, who has died since the last trial, testified, in part, on the former trial: "Prior to July 3, 1930, I lived in Goldsboro, N. C., and was connected with Utility Mfg. Co., in 1929 up until October, at which time Utility Mfg. Co. was bought by Atlas Plywood Corporation, and after October 1, 1929, I was Manager of Atlas Plywood Corporation; I knew Mr. J. C. Causey and he was also employed by the Company. He was in charge of the logging operations. He has been with the company since Sept. 15, 1929. *** Mr. Causey drove a Hudson coach, and it belonged to the Atlas Plywood Corporation. *** I know Mr. Herman Casey; he has been in the office at Goldsboro on a number of occasions. The last time he was in the office to my knowledge was the latter part of May or first of June. He came over there to see about some money that had been withheld at Goldsboro Lumber Company. He did make a statement in reference to it. ***

"Q. What was it? (Defendant objects unless it refers to Mr. Casey.) He said 'I am going to have my money, somebody is going to pay me.' (Defendant objects to answer and asks that it be stricken out; overruled; defendant excepts.) I did refuse to pay him the money and did not permit him to be paid. *** (Court questions) Mr. Casey was in the office the latter part of May or first of June to see about some money that was being held back. Mr. Casey knew who was holding up the money. I explained to him it was held up by my Company. I don't know whether Mr. Casey knew Mr. Causey or not. As I recall it, I told Mr. Casey that Mr. Causey had charge of the logging operations. I had quite a conversation with Mr. Casey, 10 or 15 minutes. I had known him several years and we talked about logging in general. (Re-cross.) Yes, sir, I am positive that I told Mr. Casey of Mr. Causey's relations to the company, because Mr. Casey asked if we had any logging operations that we could put him on and I told him he would have to see Mr. Causey, that he had charge of the logging operations."

Mrs. G C. Andrews on the present trial testified, in part, that she was court reporter at the former trial of the defendant: "(Court) Q. Is your transcript substantially correct? Mrs. Andrews: Yes, sir, I say it is. My Transcript is a full and complete transcript of the direct and cross-examination. I might say...