State v. Coats
| Decision Date | 27 May 1902 |
| Citation | 41 S.E. 706,130 N.C. 701 |
| Parties | STATE v. COATS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from superior court, Madison county; M. H. Justice, Judge.
Garrett Coats was convicted of an assault with intent to rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
Where an indorsement on an indictment shows that the grand jury has examined accused's wife, but also another and competent witness, a motion to quash is properly overruled, the court being justified in awaiting the verdict of the trial jury on the competent evidence considered by the grand jury.
Pritchard Adams & Rollins, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
This is an indictment for an assault upon Zanie Coats with intent to commit rape. Said Zanie and Fronie Coats, the wife of defendant, were sworn and examined as witnesses before a grand jury. The defendant moved to quash because his wife was examined before the grand jury. Motion denied, and defendant excepted. Upon the trial the wife was not examined as a witness. Verdict of guilty. Motion in arrest of judgment upon same ground as in motion to quash. Motion denied, and defendant again excepted. This is the only point presented.
The law is uniformly held by many decisions and not one has been found to the contrary, as follows: When an indictment is found upon testimony all of which is incompetent, or of witnesses all of whom were disqualified the bill will be quashed; but when some of the testimony or some of the witnesses before the grand jury were incompetent the court will not go into the barren inquiry how far such testimony or such witnesses contributed to finding the bill which is merely a charge, but will admit the competent witnesses or testimony on the trial before the petit jury, and, if sufficient to satisfy the jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt, the judgment will not be arrested, for such verdict establishes in the most conclusive mode that the incompetent evidence was mere surplusage in making out a prima facie case before the grand jury, and works no prejudice to the prisoner. In State v. Tucker, 20 Iowa, 508, it is held that the admission of incompetent testimony (the wife against the husband) by the grand jury (there being other and competent evidence) does not warrant quashing the indictment. The court says: "Whether witnesses are competent is often a very difficult question of law, and to hold that if the grand jury, in the course of their investigation, happen to examine an incompetent witness, that this will have the effect to vitiate their finding, is going a step further than we are prepared to take." In State v. Shreve, 137 Mo. 1, 38 S.W. 548, the court hold that, there being competent witnesses against the husband before the grand jury, "it is no ground to quash the indictment that an incompetent witness [the wife] also testified before the grand jury." Exactly the same ruling was made in Dockery v. State, 35 Tex. Cr. App. 487, 34 S.W. 281, and Hammond v. State, 74 Miss. 214, 21 So. 149, in both of which one of the witnesses was the wife against the husband. In Whart. Cr. Pl. (9th Ed.) § 363, note 4, it is said: "The mere reception of some evidence that is incompetent does not avoid the finding,"--citing State v. Fasset, 16 Conn. 457; State v. Wolcott, 21 Conn. 272; State v. Boyd, 2 Hill, 288, 27 Am. Dec. 376; Turk v. State, 7 Ohio, 242, pt. 2; State v. Tucker, 20 Iowa, 509; Jones v. State, 81 Ala. 79, 1 So. 32,--all of which sustain the text. The same section says: "It seems that if a bill is found solely on incompetent evidence it will be quashed before plea, though the objection will be too late after conviction;" citing on this last proposition, among other cases, State v. Fellows, 3 N. C. 340. Thomp. & M. Juries, § 642, notes 1-3, says: "An indictment should not be held bad because the grand jury heard improper evidence;" citing, in addition to the cases above cited by Dr. Wharton, Bloomer v. State, 3 Sneed, 66; People v. Strong, 1 Abb. Prac. (N. S.) 244; Hope v. People, 83 N.Y. 418, 38 Am. Rep. 460; State v. Logan, 1 Nev. 509; Steele v. State, 1 Tex. 142. In 1 Bish. New Cr. Proc. § 872 (5): "It will not sustain a plea in abatement that one of several witnesses (before the grand jury) was incompetent." There are other authorities, but all seem to be to the same effect, and this was the common law. Rex v. Marsh, 6 Adol. & E. 236....
To continue reading
Request your trial