State v. Combs
| Decision Date | 29 April 1931 |
| Docket Number | 352. |
| Citation | 158 S.E. 252,200 N.C. 671 |
| Parties | STATE v. COMBS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Quickel, Special Judge.
Howard Combs and Hoffman Wells were convicted of housebreaking and of larceny of property exceeding in value the sum of $20, and they appeal.
No error.
That clerk in addressing jurors in case in which defendants were jointly indicted inadvertently stated that jury were to try case between one defendant and the other held not prejudicial.
Two indictments pending in the superior court of Surry county were, on motion of the solicitor for the state, consolidated for trial.
In each of said indictments, both the above-named defendants were charged with the commission of felonies, to wit housebreaking (C. S. § 4235), and larceny of property exceeding in value the sum of $20. (C. S. § 4252.)
In one of said indictments, it was alleged that on May 22, 1930, the defendants broke into and entered a building in Surry county and stole therefrom an automobile, the property of John Thomas, of the value of $200; in the other indictment, it was alleged that the defendants on the same day, to wit, May 22 1930, broke into and entered another building in Surry county, and stole therefrom certain articles of wearing apparel, to wit, men's suits and women's dresses, the property of D. E. Koontz, of the value of $100.
Neither of the defendants objected to the consolidation of the two indictments, at the time the order for such consolidation was made by the court. After the indictments had been consolidated, each defendant entered a plea of not guilty and jurors were thereupon duly chosen and sworn to try the issue between the State and the defendants.
After the jurors were sworn, the clerk of the court addressed them as follows:
At the trial, the evidence introduced by the state tended to show that the crimes charged in the indictments had been committed as alleged therein. The evidence introduced by the defendants did not tend to show the contrary. The defendants denied that they had broken into or entered either of the buildings described in the indictments, and denied that they had stolen either the automobile or the wearing apparel. Their evidence tended to show that each of the defendants was at his home in the town of Mt. Airy in bed and asleep at the time the crimes were committed.
John Thomas, a witness for the state, testified that during the night of May 22, 1930, his automobile--a Chevrolet roadster--was stolen from Hawke's Garage, which is located in the rear of his home in the town of Mt. Airy. The automobile was worth $250. It was returned to the witness the next day by police officers of the town of Mt. Airy.
D. E. Koontz, a witness for the state, testified that during the night of May 22, 1930, the building located in the town of Mt. Airy, and occupied by the witness as proprietor of a pressing club, was entered through a window which faced on the street, and that several men's suits and women's dresses, of the value of $100, were stolen from the building. These articles of wearing apparel, which were the property of the witness, were returned to him the next day by police officers of the town of Mt. Airy.
The defendants, each testifying as a witness in his own behalf, admitted that they were together during the afternoon preceding the night when the buildings were entered and the property stolen, in the vicinity of the building occupied by D. E. Koontz as a pressing club. They remained together during the evening until about 10 o'clock, when they separated, each going to his own home for the night.
A police officer of the town of Mt. Airy testified that he was on duty, patrolling the streets of said town, during the night of May 22, 1930. At about 2 o'clock a. m., this witness saw on the streets of said town a Chevrolet roadster, driven by the defendant Howard Combs. There were two men in the roadster, when the witness first saw it at a distance of 300 or 400 yards from Koontz's pressing club. The witness recognized one of these men, the driver, as the defendant Howard Combs. He did not recognize the other man in the roadster, and did not undertake to identify the defendant Hoffman Wells as the companion at the trial of the defendant Howard Combs. The witness followed the roadster until it was driven out of town. When the driver of the roadster realized that the witness, an officer, was pursuing him, he drove the automobile off the road, and into a meadow. He stopped the automobile near a haystack. The two men, who were in the automobile when the witness first saw it on a street in the town of Mr. Airy, jumped and ran, leaving the motor running and the lights burning. The witness pursued them through the meadow, but was unable to overtake them. Both men escaped. The grass in the meadow was wet with dew.
When the witness went to the automobile he found a number of men's suits and women's dresses in it. The next day the automobile was identified by John Thomas as his property. It was delivered to him by the police officers. The men's suits and the women's dresses were identified by D. E. Koontz as his property. They were delivered to him by the police officers.
A witness for the state testified that he discovered the next day a track on the ground near the window in the building occupied by D. E. Koontz as a pressing club. There was evidence tending to show that this track was made by the shoe found on the foot of the defendant Hoffman Wells when he was arrested. There was also evidence tending to show that the bottoms of the pants worn by the defendant Hoffman Wells, the morning after the automobile and wearing apparel were stolen, were wet.
For the purpose of showing that the defendant Hoffman Wells broke into and entered the building occupied by D. E. Koontz as a pressing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
... ... charges against any person for the same act or for two or ... more transactions connected together, or for two or more ... transactions of the same class of offenses, which may be ... properly joined, the court will order them to be ... consolidated. State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E ... 252; State v. Malpass, 189 ... [28 S.E.2d 236] ... N.C. 349, 127 S.E. 248; State v. Lewis, 185 N.C ... 640, 116 S.E. 259. This means, however, that the order of ... consolidation will be made in such cases when seasonably ... brought to the court's attention, ... ...
-
State v. Yoes, 659
...G.S. § 15--152; State v. Overman, 269 N.C. 453, 466, 153 S.E.2d 44; State v. Hamilton, 264 N.C. 277, 141 S.E.2d 506; State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252. There being nothing in the record to suggest abuse of discretion in the ruling of the court upon any of these motions, these assig......
-
State v. Madden
...44 (1967); State v. White, 256 N.C. 244, 123 S.E.2d 483 (1962); State v. Bryant, 250 N.C. 113, 108 S.E.2d 128 (1959); State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252 (1931). The defendants are not entitled to a new trial by reason of the sustaining of the State's challenges to jurors who, on voi......
-
State v. Rudolph, 7810SC749
...291 (1951); State v. Helms, 218 N.C. 592, 12 S.E.2d 243 (1940); State v. Huffman, 209 N.C. 10, 182 S.E. 705 (1935); State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252 (1931). We have repeatedly said that the testimony of a fingerprint expert is 'competent as evidence tending to show that defendant ......