State v. Craton
| Decision Date | 31 December 1845 |
| Citation | 28 N.C. 164,6 Ired. 164 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JOHN P. CRATON. |
Where it was suggested to the Court, on behalf of the State, that there were errors in the transcript of the case sent up, and it was also suggested that these errors existed in the original record below, and that they were mere misprisions of the Clerk of that Court, on motion of the Attorney General, it was ordered that a certiorari issue, and, although it was a capital case, that the certiorari be made returnable at a day posterior to the next term of the Court below, in order that that Court might, if they thought fit, make the proper amendments in their record, before the return of the certiorari. The errors consisted in mistaking the name of the Judge who held the Court, when the indictment was found, and omitting altogether the name of the Judge before whom it was tried.
Although it is more correct, in making up the record of a criminal trial, that the presence of the accused should be expressly affirmed, yet it is sufficient if it appear by a necessary or reasonable implication: as where it is stated, that the accused, who had been before committed to the custody of the Sheriff, was ordered to be brought to the bar, and immediately thereafter he is called, by the jury in giving, and by the Clerk in recording, the verdict, the prisoner at the bar, and next, the Court, in passing sentence, adjudged that the prisoner be taken back to the prison.
On a trial for murder, the question of provocation is proper for the decision of the Court; for whether certain facts amount to a sufficient provocation to palliate a killing from murder to manslaughter, is entirely a question of law.
When one man is unlawfully restrained of his liberty and kills the aggressor, the offence is only manslaughter, unless attended with circumstances of great cruelty and barbarity. But when the restraint is upon one man by another, so far as to prevent the former from doing what the latter may lawfully resist his doing, and the person restrained, in that manner and for that cause, kill the other, it is murder.
A husband has a right to use compulsion, if necessary, to enable him to regain the possession of his wife, from one in whose society he finds her, and who, he has good reason to believe, either has committed, or is about to commit adultery with her.
Whether an instrument, by which death is occasioned, if it be in fact as described by the testimony, be one, by which death may or may not be probably caused, is a question of general reason, and therefore proper for the Court; and if it be doubtful, whether it would probably cause death, the Court should direct a conviction for manslaughter only.
The Court has a right to excuse jurors, who have been summoned upon a venire in a capital case, upon their application, for any reasonable cause.
The State's challenge to a juror for cause, need not be decided on immediately, but it is in the discretion of the Court to let it stand until the panel be gone through.
The cases of the State v. Reid, 1 Dev. and Bat. 377, and the State v. Benton, 2 Dev. and Bat. 196, cited and approved.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Cabarrus County, at the Fall Term, 1845, his Honor Judge PEARSON presiding.
The defendant was indicted for the wilful murder of Thomas F. Harrison, and, being convicted and judgment pronounced against him, appealed to this Court.
According to the transcript filed by the prisoner in this Court, the indictment was found in Cabarrus Superior Court, on the 3d Monday of February, 1845, which was held by William L. Bailey, one of the Judges of the Superior Court, and it did not appear by whom the Court was held at August term following, at which term the prisoner was tried. On those accounts, the Attorney General, early in this term, moved for a certiorari. On that, the Clerk returned a second transcript, in which it is set forth, that the February term was held by his Honor JOHN L. BAILEY, and August term, by his Honor RICHMOND M. PEARSON. But, accompanying the transcript, there is a written statement of the present Clerk, that in fact the original record purports that William L. Bailey (and not John L. Bailey as it should be) presided at February term, and that it does not state who presided at August term. Upon this statement, the truth of which was not contested by the Attorney General, a motion was made, on behalf of the prisoner, for another certiorari, with directions to the Clerk to send an exact transcript of the record, as remaining in his office. The Attorney General did not oppose the motion, but requested that the writ might be made returnable to some day in the present term, posterior to the next term of Cabarrus Superior Court, which will be on the 3d Monday of February, so as to enable that Court by proper entries to correct the mistake and supply the omission of the Clerk.
Possibly the Court, under the liberal language of the statute, might amend here in the particular points in which this transcript is defective, as there could be no mistake as to the Judges who held the Court at the terms mentioned. But, for the reasons given in Ballard v. Carr, 4 Dev. 575, it is more convenient that it should be done in the Superior Court, so as to make the records of the two Courts consistent. The corrections may be made by changing in the original record the name of Judge BAILEY, and by inserting that of Judge PEARSON, at August Term; and there is no doubt that it is competent to the Superior Court to make such corrections. State v. Reid, 1 Dev. and Bat. 377. It is with great reluctance, that, in a matter affecting life, the Court allows such an indulgence. Indeed, it is done only under the constraint of the absolute necessity of the case. The defects are mere misprisions of the Clerk, and, unless faults of that kind be cured in this manner, it is apparent that crimes are to go unpunished. Since the recent alterations in the mode of appointing Clerks, and the tenure of the office, there has been so rapid and so great a falling off in the skill and diligence of those officers, as leads those, who have to look into all the records that come to this Court, to entertain serious apprehensions for the security of rights, founded on judicial proceedings, by reason of the want of records, merely, in due legal form. It is to be regretted, that persons, not practically connected with the administration of the law, are not aware of the importance of orderly entries according to settled precedents; and that they cannot be duly impressed with the truth, that it is a task of real difficulty to draw up such entries and engross a proper record, requiring abilities which few possess, and indeed none but those who, with good capacity, have been trained to it as a profession, by good instruction and long practice. But in point of fact, we have not now officers, possessing such proficiency; and it is our duty to execute public justice as well as we can, in the circumstances actually existing. We must endeavor to overcome the evils of unfit Clerks, by correcting their misprisions, as far as the known and certain truth may enable us in any case to do so. There are defects, which are beyond the reach of any correction, and to them we must submit. But those now under consideration are, from their nature, so easily corrected by putting the record into proper form, and, at the same time, make it certainly speak the truth, that we cannot refuse to the State the opportunity of applying to the Judge of the Superior Court for that purpose, if he should deem it proper to allow the corrections. The writ will therefore be made returnable on the 25th day of February, in the present term.
A new transcript was returned in obedience to the certiorari, containing a copy of the record, as amended in the Superior Court of Law of Cabarrus County, at February term, 1846.
The case sent up contains in detail all the evidence given on the trial, the charge of the presiding Judge, and the various objections urged by the prisoner's counsel. These matters are so fully set forth in the opinion delivered in this Court, that it is thought superfluous to repeat them here.
Attorney General and Saunders, for the State .
Badger, for the defendant .
The counsel for the prisoner assigned as an error in the judgment, that it does not appear by the record, that the prisoner was personally present in Court, at the time of the trial and sentence passed. The record sets forth the indictment found at February term 1845; and then “the prisoner, John P. Craton, appearing at the bar and pleads not guilty;” and he is thereupon committed to close custody. At August term following, the record states, that “it is ordered by the Court, that the prisoner, John P. Craton, be brought to the bar,” and immediately thereafter, it states that the jury were sworn and empannelled, and that they “find the prisoner at the bar guilty,” &c. and, thereupon, the judgment of the Court, “that the prisoner, John P. Craton, be taken back to the prison, &c. from which judgment the prisoner prays an appeal and gives bond, & c.”
It is admitted, that it is the privilege of the accused to confront his accusers, and be present in his proper person to make defence, by pleading and before the jury, and also to make objection to sentence being passed. But, we think it sufficiently appears, that this person was present in all those stages of the case. We agree, that it would be much better to state it directly. It is a very simple thing to write down what is done in Court in the present tense, as the acts occur, and, one would think, it would be easier to adhere to settled forms, than to rely upon very variety of mode of framing entries being sufficient. It is greatly to be regretted, that the Clerks will not be guided by precedents in such matters; and that quoted at the bar from Blackstone, 4 Com. Appendix 1, is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sturdivant, 1
...State v. Smith, 187 N.C. 469, 121 S.E. 737 (1924) (baseball bat); State v. Beal, 170 N.C. 764, 87 S.E. 416 (1915) (rock); State v. Craton, 28 N.C. 164 (1845) (pine stub); State v. Whitaker, 29 N.C.App. 602, 225 S.E.2d 129 (1976) (broom handle, nail clippers).3 Indeed, the case reports of th......
-
State v. Creech
...v. Hammonds, 216 N.C. 67, 3 S.E.2d 439; State v. Alston, 214 N.C. 93, 197 S.E. 719; State v. Keever, 177 N.C. 114, 97 S.E. 727; State v. Craton, 28 N.C. 164, 178. The onus showing 'justification, excuse or mitigation,' to the satisfaction of the jury, is on the defendant. State v. Willis, 6......
-
State v. Perry
... ... State v. Watkins, 200 N.C. 692, 158 S.E. 393, 394, ... Stacy, C. J., speaking for the Court, said: 'Any ... instrument which is likely to produce death or great bodily ... harm, under the circumstances of its use, is properly ... denominated a deadly weapon. State v. Craton, 28 ... N.C. 164, 165, at page 179. But where it may or may not be ... likely to produce such results, according to the manner of ... its use, or the part of the body at which the blow is aimed, ... its alleged deadly character is one of fact to be determined ... by the jury. State v. West, 51 ... ...
-
Wood v. State
... ... prisoner that this does not ascertain with sufficient ... certainty his presence during the trial. Under the rule ... laid down in the case of Christmas we think it does; and ... that we are bound, from it, to believe that he was present ... during the trial. Craton's Case is an authority on this ... point. The language of the court in that case is: 'But ... although it is the more correct that the presence of the ... accused should be expressly affirmed, yet we conceive, it ... is sufficient, if it appear by a necessary or reasonable ... implication. 28 ... ...