State v. Everett
| Decision Date | 02 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | 273. |
| Citation | 140 S.E. 22,194 N.C. 442 |
| Parties | STATE v. EVERETT. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Cumberland County; Barnhill, Judge.
Roy Everett was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed and dismissed.
Evidence of defendant's guilt of manslaughter held insufficient for jury where not showing wound inflicted by him caused death.
Bullard & Stringfield, of Fayetteville, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
The deceased, Nina Everett, was the wife of defendant, Roy Everett. She died at their home in Cumberland county, on Monday, May 2, 1927. The state contended that her death was the result of a wound upon her head inflicted by defendant on Sunday night, April 24, 1927, with a knife or some sharp instrument; that said wound became infected, because of neglect; and that this infection was taken into her circulatory system and carried thereby to her brain, causing cerebrospinal meningitis, which was the direct and immediate cause of her death.
There was evidence tending to show that on Monday, April 25, 1927 a week before the death of deceased, defendant told a witness for the state, with whom he was at work in a field on his farm, that during the preceding night, while he was asleep he had a dream; that in his dream he saw a man coming toward him with a knife, threatening to kill him; that he said to the man, "I will cut you if you come on me"; that when he awoke he was in his wife's room, and that he and she were on the floor; and that, in response to a question addressed to her, she said to him, "The point of your knife was on the back of my head." This was the only evidence from which the jury could find that defendant inflicted a wound upon the head of deceased. There was evidence that when inquiry was made both before and after her death as to whether deceased had been struck on the head, defendant said that he had never struck his wife. There was no evidence other than the testimony of this witness as to the statement made to him by defendant that he had struck his wife at any time. There was an utter absence of evidence showing any motive or provocation for defendant to strike or cut his wife.
A witness for the state, the daughter of a tenant on defendant's farm, testified that deceased came to her home, about a fourth of a mile from deceased's home, with her baby in her arms, between 8:30 and 9 o'clock on Monday morning, April 25, 1927; that while deceased was there, witness saw a cut on the left side of her head-a little cut above her ear. Deceased's hair was bobbed. This witness returned with deceased to her home, at her request, and spent the day there with her. She testified that she saw deceased at her home every day from then until her death. She took no further notice of the cut on deceased's head, which she referred to in her testimony as "a little scratch."
Another witness, who lived in defendant's home and worked for him on his farm, testified that on Monday, April 25, 1927, he observed some blood on deceased's hair, on the left side of her head. These were the only witnesses who testified to having seen any wound on deceased's head, prior to her death. There was evidence tending to show that during the week preceding her death, deceased was engaged in her usual household duties, until Saturday, and that she visited neighbors during the week. On Wednesday she complained of a severe headache; she was sick during the remainder of the week, but was not confined to the house until Sunday. On Sunday defendant called a physician to see her. She was then unconscious, and not able to speak, except in monosyllables. She died about 24 hours after the physician's first visit. He testified that her condition was hopeless when he first saw her, and that he made no examination of her body and saw no wound on her head, prior to her death. In the opinion of this physician, deceased's death was caused by cerebrospinal meningitis. This disease, the physician testified, is essentially and necessarily a disease of the brain and spine. The term is elastic and may be used to cover any disease of the brain or spinal cord of a nonspecific nature. The disease may be caused by infection...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State Carolina v. Parlee
...direct cause is the natural result of the criminal act.” State v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 722, 68 S.E.2d 844, 848 (1952); State v. Everett, 194 N.C. 442, 140 S.E. 22 (1927). There may be more than one proximate cause and criminal responsibility arises when the act complained of caused or dire......
-
State v. Roop, 362
...must be added that the act was a proximate cause of death to hold a person criminally responsible for manslaughter. State v. Everett, 194 N.C. 442, 140 S.E. 22; State v. Satterfield, 198 N.C. 682, 153 S.E. 155; State v. Lowery, 223 N. C. 598, 27 S.E.2d 638; State v. Phelps, This Court said ......
-
State v. Carter
...somewhat strong perhaps, of a homicide and the defendant's guilt. This is not enough on a prosecution for murder. State v. Everett, 194 N.C. 442, 140 S.E. 22. The demurrer to the evidence will be sustained, and judgment of nonsuit entered here, C. S. § 4643, on authority of the following ca......
-
State v. King
...... Utley, 126 N.C. 997, 35 S.E. 428; State v. Hart, 116 N.C. 976, 20 S.E. 1014. . . The. jury was fully warranted in finding that Mary Flossie. Williams came to her death as a direct result of the injury. inflicted by the defendant. The case is not like State v. Everett, 194 N.C. 442, 140 S.E. 22, strongly relied upon. by defendant, for in the Everett Case, there was no. sufficient evidence of the corpus delicti or to show that a. crime had been committed. . . A. careful perusal of the record leaves us with the impression. that ......