State v. Fleming

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: CLARK
• Citation: State v. Fleming, 130 N.C. 688, 41 S.E. 549 (N.C. 1902)
• Decision Date: 20 May 1902
• Parties: STATE v. FLEMING et al.

41 S.E. 549

130 N.C. 688

STATE

v.FLEMING et al.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 20, 1902.

CRIMINAL LAW — CONFESSIONS — ADMISSIBILITY—INSTRUCTIONS—CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.

1. Confessions made by accused in jail are admissible in evidence where the testimony shows that there were neither threats nor inducements.

2. Refusal of charge that, when circumstantial evidence is relied on, "every link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, " was not ground for reversing a conviction, where the court charged thatthe state relied "upon both direct and circumstantial evidence, and, before the state can rely upon circumstantial evidence, it is necessary for the state to establish every circumstantial fact upon which it relies beyond a reasonable doubt."

Appeal from superior court. Rowan county; Shaw, Judge.

Dick Fleming and Richard Blanton were convicted of rape, and appeal. Affirmed.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK, J. This is an indictment against three negroes for rape upon a white woman, a widow, who, with her little daughter, was living in a house without male protectors. The assailants broke open the door and committed the crime with every conceivable circumstance of violence and brutality. The revolting details are narrated with a simplicity and an evident truthfulness that make the blood run cold. The only question was as to the identity of the prisoners. The jury, after hearing the evidence and the defense of able counsel, said for their verdict that they had a reasonable doubt as to the identity of one of the prisoners, and acquitted him, but that they had none as to the other two. There was exception to evidence of previous statements made by the prosecutrix in corroboration of her evidence on the stand; also to evidence which the Judge, after admitting over the prisoner's objection, subsequently withdrew, and told the jury not to consider. Both these points have been so often passed upon by the court that no citation of authority is necessary. State v. Apple, 121 N. C. 584, 28 S. E. 469; State v. Coats (at this term) 41 S. E. 706; State v. Collins, 03 N. C. 564, and cases there cited. The confessions in Jail were competent, the testimony being that there were neither threats nor inducements. State v. Bishop, 98 N. C. 773, 4 S. E. 357. The special prayers for instructions by the prisoners (which were principally as to the defense of an alibi) were given, except the prayer that there was not sufficient evidence to go...