State v. Corp.Ening
| Decision Date | 20 December 1911 |
| Citation | 73 S.E. 214,157 N.C. 621 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. CORPENING. |
The part of a letter which contained severable and distinct admissions by accused tending to show guilt were admissible in evidence, though the remaining part was lost or destroyed; distinct parts of a writing containing admissions favorable to the offering party being admissible in evidence, leaving the other party to put the remaining part of the document in evidence if it explains or qualifies the admission.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 918, 919; Dec. Dig. § 409.*]
It was error for the state's attorney, in a seduction case, to read to the jury the facts in a similar case in an adjoining county, relied upon as supporting prosecutrix's evidence, and to state to the jury that a jury in the other county had convicted in that ease, and that the supporting evidence was much stronger in the present case than in the other case, though the state's attorney may properly state the facts of the decisions relied upon by him to the extent of applying the law of such decisions to the instant case.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 719.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Macon County; Webb, Judge.
Will Corpening was convicted of seduction, and he appeals.
Reversed, and new trial ordered.
Defendant assigned as error the fact appearing of record that, with other letters, complete in form and tending to establish guilt, the court, over defendant's objection, admitted a portion of a letter containing relevant admissions of defendant, the remaining portions of the letter having been lost or destroyed; that the plaintiff's attorney, over defendant's objections, was allowed to make improper user of the facts of another case in his argument to the jury.
Johnston & Horn and J. Frank Ray, for appellant.
T. W. Bickett, Atty. Gen., Geo. L Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Robertson & Benbow, for the State.
HOKE, J. [1] The portion of the letter admitted in evidence contained severable and distinct declarations or admissions tending to establish guilt on the part of the defendant, and, in our opinion, the same were properly received in evidence.
The portion of the letter which remained afforded the best evidence of the ad-missions contained in it, and apart from this admissions of this character are not ordinarily considered to be within the best evidence rule. McKelvey on Evidence, p. 94. It is sometimes said that, when an admission appears in a writing, the whole instrument, or so much of it as relates to the matter embraced in the admissions, must be read; but this must be taken with some qualification, and a party may always offer a distinct and severable portion of a writing, containing declarations or admissions of his adversary which tend to establish his position, leaving to that other the right to put such remaining portions in evidence which may serve to explain or qualify the admission. 1 Ency. of Evidence, pp. 385, 609, and note 50, p. 610; Rouse v. Whited, 25 N. Y. 170, 82 Am. Dec. 337; Cramer v. Gregg, 40 Ill. App. 442; Jones v. Fort, 36 Ala. 449; 1 Elliott on Evidence, § 241, p. 349.
In this last citation, it is said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips, 509
...624, 150 S.E. 18; State v. Tucker, 190 N.C. 708, 130 S.E. 720; State v. Evans, 183 N.C. 758, 111 S.E. 345; State v. Corpening, 157 N.C. 621, 73 S.E. 214, 38 L.R.A., N.S., 1130; State v. Goode, 132 N.C. 982, 43 S.E. 502; State v. Tuten, 131 N.C. 701, 42 S.E. 443; Hash v. State, 48 Ariz. 43, ......
-
Conn v. Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co.
... ... Prior ... to December 27, 1844, an attorney was not permitted to argue ... law to a jury. In State v. Miller, 75 N.C. 73, ... Justice Reade said: "Some twenty-five years ago a ... Circuit Judge restrained a lawyer from arguing the law to the ... where such reading would reasonably tend to prejudice either ... party upon the facts. State v. Corpening, 157 N.C ... 621, 73 S.E. 214, 215, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130; Forbes ... v. Harrison, 181 N.C. 461, 107 S.E. 447, 448; ... Elliott v. Power ... ...
-
Betts v. Western Union Telegraph Co.
... ... Affirmed ... It was ... proper for counsel, in arguing a legal question to the court ... in the jury's presence, to state" the facts in another ... case decided by a per curiam order of the Supreme Court and ... claimed to be an authority for counsel's position ... \xC2" ... 483, Harrington v. Wadesboro, 153 ... N.C. 437, 69 S.E. 399, Chadwick v. Kirkman, 159 N.C ... 259, 74 S.E. 968, and State v. Corpening, 157 N.C ... 623, 73 S.E. 214, 38 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1130, fully sustain the ... ruling of the court. In those cases the counsel was reading ... ...
-
Wilcox v. Glover Motors, Inc., 116
...verdict in this case should be the same as the decision there. Forbes v. Harrison, 181 N.C. 461, 107 S.E. 447; State v. Corpening, 157 N.C. 621, 73 S.E. 214, 38 L.R.A.,N.S., 1130; 53 Am.Jur. Trial, § 493; 88 C.J.S. Trial § 171. This is but an application of the rule that, in his argument to......