State v. Evans

• Decision Date: 04 March 1925
• Docket Number: (No. 49.)
• Citation: 189 N.C. 233,126 S.E. 607
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. EVANS.

126 S.E. 607

(189 N. C. 233)

STATE

v.EVANS.

(No. 49.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 4, 1925.

Appeal from Superior Court, Nash County; Lyon, Judge.

Cheatam Evans was convicted of murder in the first degree, and death sentence pronounced, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree. From an adverse verdict finding the defendant guilty of the capital felony as charged in the bill of indictment, and judgment of death pronounced thereon, he appeals, assigning errors.

P. S. Spruill, Jr., of Rocky Mount, for appellant.

D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

STACY, J. On July 26, 1924, about 8 or 8:30 p. m., A. l. Joyner, a jitney driver in the town of Hollister, Halifax county, was employed to make a trip down into Nash county, where the defendant lives. He had in his car Tom Lee, Ernest Lee, and the defendant, Cheatam Evans. Soon after arriving at the defendant's home, the driver of the car, A. L. Joyner, was shot twice and almost instantly killed. The state contended that the deceased was shot and killed by the defendant. The defense, on the other hand, contended that Ernest Lee did the shooting, while the defendant was in his house and away from the scene of the homicide. There was evidence tending to support the two contentions, and the jury took the state's view of the matter.

It was in evidence that the deceased was shot with a gun belonging to the defendant; that the car with Joyner's body in it was driven to Davis' bridge, some distance away, where the bloody footmat of the car was thrown into the creek; that the car was driven from there to another creek where Joyner's body was thrown into the water; that a watch taken from the defendant was Joyner's watch, and, when Joyner's body was found, his watch chain was in the button hole of his shirt; and that a knife taken from the defendant was similar to one owned by Joyner. Early in the morning, following the night of the homicide, the defendant came to the home of Washington Lynch, driving Joyner's automobile, and wanted to borrow some license plates. There was other evidence tending to show the defendant's guilt.

The defendant, a witness in his own behalf, testified that he was invited by Tom and Ernest Lee to ride with them in Joyner's car, as they were going down into Nash county, by the defendant's home. This he consented to do, and, upon arriving at his house, they all stopped for water. Taking advantage of the delay, the defendant went into his house to get supper; soon after he began eating his evening meal, Ernest Lee came to the door and wanted to borrow his gun, saying that he (Ernest Lee), Tom Lee and Joyner were going down the road to get some whisky, and that they might need it before they got back. Ernest Lee took the gun and went out to the car. In a very short time the defendant heard two shots; he ran to the door, and saw Ernest Lee with the gun. Ernest Lee told the defendant that he shot Joyner because he would not carry him and Tom Lee to get the whisky. Defendant further testified that after the killing he was forced by Ernest Lee, under threats of death, to get in the car and go with them, that they finally let him out of the car near Hollister after repeatedly threatening him with death if he dared tell what had happened. The jury rejected this view of the evidence.

In corroboration of the state's evidence, and in support of its theory of the case, the prosecution undertook to show that the de-ceased was employed by the defendant to make the trip in question, and not by the Lee boys as the defendant contended. The admission of the following evidence, looking to that end and given by the witness ...