State v. Davis
| Decision Date | 10 April 1957 |
| Docket Number | No. 289,289 |
| Citation | 97 S.E.2d 444,246 N.C. 73 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. Andrew Yates DAVIS. |
Mull & Patton, Morgantown, for defendant-appellant.
George B. Patton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant and the deceased, his wife, prior to November 5, 1955, lived in a rural section of Burke County. At about 8:30 on the morning of that day the State's witness Coleman went to the house where he found the defendant dressed and in the kitchen. The body of his wife was lying on her back in the bathroom near a pool of blood. The coroner, a physician, performed an autopsy and expressed the opinion that death resulted from 'extensive bleeding in the chest cavity and on the outside tissue of the brain--produced by blunt force and blows about the face, head, and chest.' The coroner performed the autopsy at about one o'clock in the afternoon of November 5th. He expressed the opinion the wounds could have been inflicted about 10 or 12 hours prior to the autopsy. Blood was discovered in several places in the house, and on the inside of the basement door 'blood extended three and one-half feet up on the door.' On the defendant's upper cheek was an abrased area and three distinct marks downward approximately one-third of an inch apart on the left cheek. When examined at about 3:30 p. m. on the day the body was found, the defendant was wearing a cotton shirt and trousers, and a pair of low- quarter shoes. There was no blood on his clothing. However, on the inside of defendant's shoes 'on the instep was a quantity of dried blood and also on the insoles and over the toes and under the sole of the foot blood was present in both shoes.' Men's clothing on which there was blood was found in the house.
The coroner stated on cross-examination that the bruises on the body of the deceased could have been caused in an automobile accident. However, there was no evidence the deceased had been involved in any accident.
On the late afternoon of November 4, two neighbors saw the deceased walking about one-quarter mile from her home. They gave her a ride to the home. At the time she had a slight limp, seemed fatigued, and had about her the odor of whisky.
The State introduced evidence that the defendant on numerous occasions had threatened to kill his wife and had committed assaults upon her many times, once with a shoe, and once with a 'fire stick.'
The investigating officer testified as to certain statements made by the defendant on November 5, 1955, to the effect that on advice of counsel he did not want to make any statement of discuss the case. For the purpose of impeachment counsel asked if the witness 'is trying to inject into the jury box that the defendant shut up like a clam and would not talk further.' The court sustained the State's objection to the question. Nothing in the testimony appeared to justify the question.
The defendant sought to have the investigating officer testify as to statements made to him by the defendant on November 8. These statements were excluded on the ground that they were self-serving. The ruling of the court was correct for the reason that the State had not introduced any part of the defendant's conversation on the 8th. The foregoing disposes of the defendant's exceptive assignments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4.
The defendant's exception No. 7 relates to the failure of the court to charge on certain minor aspects of the case. The charge, however, taken contextually as it must be, presents clear, concise and complete instructions to the jury on all essential features of the case and is in compliance with G.S. § 1-180. If the defendant desired more detailed instructions, he should have requested them. State v. Glatly, 230 N.C. 177, 52 S.E.2d 277; State v. Reddick, 222 N.C. 520, 23 S.E.2d 909; State v. Bohanon, 142 N.C. 695, 55 S.E. 797.
The defendant places his main reliance on exceptions Nos. 5 and 6 relating to the failure of the court to direct a verdict of not guilty. In this case the evidence was circumstantial. Beyond question this Court has consistently adhered to the rule that in order to convict on circumstantial evidence, that evidence must not only be consistent with guilt, it must be inconsistent with innocence. It must point unerringly to guilt and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis. Unless the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fowler v. Branker
...of another statement made by the defendant at some other time. See State v. Lovin, 454 S.E.2d 229, 237 (1995); State v. Davis, 97 S.E.2d 444, 445-46 (N.C. 1957). The purpose of this rule is to prevent a defendant from circumventing the hearsay rule, which does not provide an exception for a......
-
State v. Smith
...786 (1974); State v. Horton, 275 N.C. 651, 170 S.E.2d 466 (1969); State v. Burton, 272 N.C. 687, 158 S.E.2d 883 (1968); State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E.2d 444 (1957); State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E.2d 431 (1956); State v. Griffin, 18 N.C.App. 14, 195 S.E.2d 569 (1973). In rulin......
-
State v. Burns
...merit. Such motion is equivalent to a motion for a judgment of nonsuit. State v. Clanton, 278 N.C. 502, 180 S.E.2d 5; State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E.2d 444. It is elementary that upon such motion the evidence for the State is deemed to be true, the State is entitled to the benefit of e......
-
State v. Sanders
...of the evidence relied on by the prosecution and the defense. State v. Guffey, 265 N.C. 331, 144 S.E.2d 14 (1965); State v. Davis, 246 N.C. 73, 97 S.E.2d 444 (1957). A 'verbatim recital of the evidence' is not required. State v. Fowler, 285 N.C. 90, 203 S.E.2d 803 (1974). A party desiring f......