State v. Curtis
| Decision Date | 30 June 1874 |
| Citation | 71 N.C. 56 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM H. CURTIS. |
If a special verdict find facts of an unequivocal character, the Court can declare the guilt or innocence of the defendant as a question of law; but if the facts found are equivocal--may mean one thing or another--then the Court cannot determine as a question of law the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
INDICTMENT, robbery from the person, tried at the Spring Term, 1874, of CASWELL Superior Court before his Honor, Judge Tourgee.
On the trial below the jury returned the following special verdict:
“That the defendant with one Buck Brandon went to the store of the prosecutor, in company with four others, at 6 o'clock and 30 minutes, December 25th, 1873; that Brandon had a double barrel gun, which he set behind the door in the store room.
That soon after the other four men left the store. Brandon then caught the prosecutor about the body and arms, while the defendant rifled the cash drawer and took outside the store the articles charged in the indictment--making two trips for this purpose.
In response to the cries of the prosecutor his wife came to his aid, and the defendant and Brandon left the store, carrying away the articles charged. That the son of prosecutor saw the defendant and Brandon the same night, and asked Brandon in defendant's presence why they had treated his father in the manner they did? Brandon said he had taken nothing, but defendant had a bottle of whiskey around the fence there which he could have.
The next morning the defendant being inquired of as to what he had done with the articles taken, especially the blanket, denied having taken it but afterwards went and got it and told where the jars and other articles (except the money) might be found.
Neither the defendant nor Brandon were disguised, and both were known to the prosecutor, and made no attempt to conceal their faces or persons. Whether upon these facts the defendant be guilty or not guilty, the jury respectfully submit to the Court.”
Upon the finding of the foregoing facts the Court adjudged the defendant not guilty, from which judgment the Solicitor for the State appealed.
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State .
No counsel cortra in this Court .
If a special verdict find facts of an unequivical character, the Court can declare the guilt or innocence of the defendant as a question of law, but if the facts found are equivocal, may mean one thing or another, then the Court cannot determine as a question of law the guilt or innocence of the defendant. For example: the jury find that the defendant rudely and of purpose ran against the prosecutor and pushed him down. The Court would have no difficulty in deciding that to be an assault and battery. And so if the jury find that the defendant accidentally stumbled and ran against the prosecutor and pushed him down, the Court could see that that was not an assault and battery. But if the jury find the simple fact that the defendant ran against the prosecutor and pushed him down without finding whether it was by accident or design, then, as has just been seen, the act being equivocal, the Court could not determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant.
There are two objections made to this view. One is that a man is presumed to intend the consequences of his acts. The other is that the defendant is entitled to the most favorable construction of whatever is doubtful. Both of these objections might be urged on the trial with propriety. The prosecutor might have insisted that when he proved the acts, the burden was upon the defendant to show mitigation or excuse. And on the other hand if the defendant offered any thing in mitigation or excuse, or if any thing appeared in the case, he had the right to have the benefit of doubts. How all this was upon the trial we do not know. But when the jury undertook to find a special verdict the burden was upon them to present all the facts. As in the case put above the Solicitor might prove that the defendant ran against the prosecutor and pushed him down, and stop his case, and insist upon a conviction upon the presumption that the defendant intended the consequence of his act. And then the defendant would have to show the accident in excuse. But the jury in a special verdict must state both sides, viz: the facts that were shown to prove his guilt, and the facts shown in excuse, and if nothing was shown in excuse then they ought to state that fact, or that the act was done on purpose.
In the case before us the special verdict states what was done, but the intent is not stated. And it is very evident that that was the difficulty they had in coming to a general verdict. They could not satisfy themselves as to the intent. Was it the purpose to steal, or was it a Christmas frolic. Now that is not a question of law, but it is a question of fact which the jury ought to have found.
In Hawkins' Pleas of the Crown,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Brown
... ... to appropriate the property as in larceny, with animo ... furandi. People v. Keefer, 2 West C. Rep. (Cal.) ... 878; Long v. State, 12 Ga. 293; State v ... Hollyway, 41 Iowa 200; Ward v. Commonwealth, 14 ... Bush, 233; Murphy v. People, 3 Hun, 114; State ... v. Curtis, 71 N.C. 56; Jordan v. Com., 25 ... Gratt. 943; 2 Wharton, Crim. Law [7 Ed.] sec. 1697; State ... v. Broderick, 59 Mo. 320. (4) The court erred in not ... submitting to the jury the question of intent in taking the ... money. Jordan v. Com., 25 Gratt. 943; People v ... Hall, 6 Park Cr. 642; ... ...
-
State v. Brown, 61
...furandi, and the prosecution must fail." The prisoner was acquitted. 61 N.C. at 153-55. The Court also ordered a new trial in State v. Curtis, 71 N.C. 56 (1874), so that the jury might find whether the defendant who was charged with robbery took the property with felonious intent. In that c......
-
State v. Lawrence, 1
...be with a felonious intent, the act is larceny, either stealing, or robbery. So it turns upon the felonious intent. * * *' In State v. Curtis, 71 N.C. 56, defendant was charged with robbery, and there was a special verdict. The facts found were equivocal on the question of intent. A new tri......
-
State v. Hanner
...facts that constitute the offense, and not those merely which may tend, though never so strongly, to show the defendant's guilt. State v. Curtis, 71 N.C. 56; State Lowry, 74 N.C. 121; State v. Bray, 89 N.C. 480; State v. Oakley, 103 N.C. 408, 9 S.E. 575; State v. Crump, 104 N.C. 763, 10 S.E......