State v. Dewer

Decision Date30 June 1871
Citation65 N.C. 572
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesTHE STATE v. WILSON DEWER and WILLIAM BATTLE.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Where A and B are jointly indicted with others, for wilfully setting fire to and burning a barn containing grain, and the evidence showed that A and B were not present, but were accessories before the fact: Held, that they could not be convicted as principals under this indictment.

The effect of the act of 1868-'69. chap. 167, entitled “an act in relation to punishments,” was not to make “misdemeanors” of offences which were formerly felonies.

Indictment for wilfully burning a barn containing grain, tried before Tourgee, J., at Spring Term, 1871, of CHATHAM Superior Court.

The defendants with Henderson Nash, Hardy Stewart, Luke Olive and Wyatt Boylan, were jointly indicted for wilfully and feloniously setting fire to and burning a barn, containing grain, the property of one James H. Mimms.

During the progress of the trial the Solicitor for the State offered to prove that the defendants Wilson W. Dewer and William Battle, advised, abetted, aided and procured their co-defendants to burn the said barn, to which defendants objected. Objection overruled, and the evidence allowed.

The defendants' counsel asked the Court to charge the jury, that although they might find the defendants, Dewer and Battle, guilty as accessories before the fact, yet they could not convict under this bill, unless they were present and participated in the burning, which instructions the Court declined to give.

Verdict guilty, as to all the defendants, except Henderson Nash.

Judgment of the Court, that the defendants Olive and Stewart be imprisoned in the Penitentiary for fifteen years, and Dewer and Battle, for twelve years at hard labor.

Appeal by the defendants, Dewer and Battle.

Attorney General, for the State .

Howze, for defendants .

PEARSON, C. J.

The act 1868-'9, ch. 167, entitled: “An act in relation to punishment” abolishes the punishment of death, except for the crimes of murder and rape, and substitutes imprisonment in the State's prison for life or for years, for the crime of burning a barn with grain in it; the term is not less than five, nor more than sixty years. The act also abolishes whipping and other corporeal punishments, and substitutes imprisonment in the State's prison.

To support the ruling of his Honor, it is necessary to establish the proposition, that the effect of this statute, is to make all felonies, except murder and rape, “m...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Surles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1949
    ...misdemeanors notwithstanding they may have been made punishable by legislative fiat with imprisonment in the state prison. State v. Dewer, 65 N.C. 572; State v. Hill, supra. Thus, certain grave crimes, such as forgery and perjury, were misdemeanors. State v. Hyman, 164 N.C 411, 79 S.E. 284;......
  • State v. Small
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • December 2, 1980
    ...have been indicted as such in order for a conviction to stand. See, e. g., State v. Green, 119 N.C. 899, 26 S.E. 112 (1896); State v. Dewer, 65 N.C. 572 (1871). Virtually all states have by now avoided such procedural limitations by legislative reform. See Model Penal Code § 2.04, Appendix ......
  • State v. Surles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1949
    ...misdemeanors notwithstanding they may have been made punishable by legislative fiat with imprisonment in the state prison. State v. Dewer, 65 N.C. 572; State Hill, supra. Thus, certain grave crimes, such as forgery and perjury, were misdemeanors. State v. Hyman, 164 N.C. 411, 79 S.E. 284; S......
  • State v. Holmes
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 28, 1978
    ...of authority and a division among members of the Court. In State v. Green, 119 N.C. 899, 26 S.E. 112 (1896), this Court, citing State v. Dewer, 65 N.C. 572 (1871), held that it was necessary to Indict and try an accused as an accessory in order for his conviction to stand. However, these ca......
  • 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