State v. Davis

Citation77 N.C. 483
Case DateJune 30, 1877
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

77 N.C. 483

STATE
v.
W. Y. DAVIS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1877.


INDICTMENT for Murder tried at Spring Term, 1877, of MADISON Superior Court, before Furches, J.

The case is sufficiently stated by Mr. Justice BYNUM in delivering the opinion of this Court. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.

Attorney General, for the State .

Messrs. Busbee & Busbee and W. H. Malone, for the defendant .

BYNUM, J.

This case is here upon two exceptions taken on the trial below to the rulings of the Court, excluding as incompetent certain testimony which was offered by the prisoner:

1. The prisoner proposed to prove by one Peck, “that Geo. Nicks had malice towards the deceased and had a motive to take his life, and the apportunity to do so, and had threatened to do so,

[77 N.C. 484]

before Court.”

2. He offered to prove by one Rice, that one Peck took a gun and went in the direction of the house of the deceased with the threat that he was going to kill the deceased some time before the deceased was killed.”

Both exceptions are untenable and have been repeatedly so held by this Court; the first, because they are the declarations of a third party and are res inter alios acta, and have no legal tendency to establish the innocence of the prisoner; and the second, for the same and the additional reason that the time when Peck is alleged to have gone with his gun in the direction of the house of the deceased with the threat to kill him, is too vaguely and indefinitely set forth.Some time before the deceased was killed” might be a week, a month, or a year. Such evidence is irrelevant and can afford no safe guide to a jury when the charge is a killing on a particular day, which is in no way connected by other proof with the time when Peck is alleged to have gone in the direction of the house of the deceased. But the homicide was committed not at the house of the deceased, but on a public road while the deceased was asleep under a ““shelter” where he was carrying on a distillery. There was no evidence so far as the case shows, that this shelter was near or in the direction of the house of the deceased, from the point whence Peck took his departure on his alleged mission of murder. Such evidence is inadmissible because it does not tend to establish the corpus delicti. Unquestionably it would have been competent to prove that a third party killed the deceased, and not the prisoner. But this could only have been done by proof connecting Peck with...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 practice notes
  • Horn v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1903
    ...It is held in some jurisdictions that threats of a third person are inadmissible as being res inter alios acta. (See State v. Davis, 77 N.C. 483; Ashworth v. State, 63 Ala. 120; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N.E. 244.) And evidence of mere threats against [73 P. 716] the life of the d......
  • State v. Lane, (No. 433.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 29 Abril 1914
    ...party that he killed the deceased are inadmissible as hearsay and as not tending to disprove the guilt of the prisoner. In State v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483, it was held, that "evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life, and an opportunity to do so, an......
  • State v. Cotton, No. 257A85
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 6 Enero 1987
    ...(1912); State v. Lambert, 93 N.C. 618 (1885); State v. Beverly, 88 N.C. 632 (1883); State v. Baxter, 82 N.C. 602 (1880); State v. Davis, 77 N.C. 483 (1887); State v. Bishop, 73 N.C. 44 (1875); State v. Haynes, 71 N.C. 79 (1874); State v. May, 15 N.C. 328 (1883) (seriatim ). The admissibilit......
  • State v. Ashburn, (No. 3470.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 14 Mayo 1924
    ...defendant, and also for purposes of identification of the defendant." State v. Griffith, 185 N. C. 760, 117 S. E. 586. In State v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483, an opinion written by Bynum, J., it was held that "evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 cases
  • Horn v. State
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • 30 Septiembre 1903
    ...It is held in some jurisdictions that threats of a third person are inadmissible as being res inter alios acta. (See State v. Davis, 77 N.C. 483; Ashworth v. State, 63 Ala. 120; Carlton v. People, 150 Ill. 181, 37 N.E. 244.) And evidence of mere threats against [73 P. 716] the life of the d......
  • State v. Lane, (No. 433.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 29 Abril 1914
    ...party that he killed the deceased are inadmissible as hearsay and as not tending to disprove the guilt of the prisoner. In State v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483, it was held, that "evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life, and an opportunity to do so, an......
  • State v. Cotton, No. 257A85
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 6 Enero 1987
    ...(1912); State v. Lambert, 93 N.C. 618 (1885); State v. Beverly, 88 N.C. 632 (1883); State v. Baxter, 82 N.C. 602 (1880); State v. Davis, 77 N.C. 483 (1887); State v. Bishop, 73 N.C. 44 (1875); State v. Haynes, 71 N.C. 79 (1874); State v. May, 15 N.C. 328 (1883) (seriatim ). The admissibilit......
  • State v. Ashburn, (No. 3470.)
    • United States
    • North Carolina United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 14 Mayo 1924
    ...defendant, and also for purposes of identification of the defendant." State v. Griffith, 185 N. C. 760, 117 S. E. 586. In State v. Davis, 77 N. C. 483, an opinion written by Bynum, J., it was held that "evidence that a third party had malice towards the deceased, a motive to take his life, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT