State v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 12 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | 523. |
| Citation | 148 S.E. 450,197 N.C. 376 |
| Parties | STATE v. FREEMAN et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Yadkin County; John H. Harwood, Special Judge.
John Freeman was convicted of arson, and he appeals. No error.
Criminal action in which the above-named defendants were tried upon their plea of not guilty to an indictment charging them with arson.
There was a verdict that defendant John Freeman is guilty, and that defendant, Dock Caudill is not guilty, of the felony and arson charged in the indictment.
From judgment that he suffer death, as prescribed by statute (C S. § 4238) the defendant John Freeman appealed to the Supreme Court.
S. E Edwards, W. Reade Johnson and John C. Wallace, all of Winston-Salem, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
During the night of July 23, 1928, the dwelling house and barn of C F. Sofley, in Yadkin county, N. C., were destroyed by fire; at the same time the garage, located on his premises, near the dwelling house and barn, was damaged by fire. Weeds growing near the garage were burned; the weather boarding and roof of the garage were scorched, but the building was not destroyed.
There was evidence on behalf of the state tending to show that the fires which destroyed the dwelling house and barn, and damaged the garage, were separate and distinct, and that each of said fires was of incendiary origin. The fires were first discovered by C. F. Sofley between 11 and 12 o'clock, at night. He and his family had gone to bed at about 9 o'clock, and were asleep when they were awakened by the fire which destroyed their home. The barn and garage were then on fire, and burning.
There was evidence tending to show that gasoline had been used to start each of the fires. Witnesses for the state testified that they saw three men walking on the highway a short distance from Sofley's home on the night of the fire, about 30 minutes before the fires were discovered. These men pulled their caps down over their eyes and turned their heads as the witnesses, riding in an automobile, passed them. Neither of witnesses recognized the men, or was able to identify them or either of them. One of the witnesses was of the opinion that all three were white men.
Tracks near the barn and the garage were discovered the morning after the fire. Some of these tracks led away from the premises in the general direction of the home of Jack Hunt, which is at a distance of about a mile from the home of C. F. Sofley. A short time before the fire, Jack Hunt had been arrested on a warrant, procured upon information furished by C. F. Sofley, charging him with the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor. Shoes were found at his home which fitted some of the tracks which were discovered on the premises of C. F. Sofley. Jack Hunt was arrested, and at a previous term of the court had entered a plea of guilty of house burning. He had been sentenced to serve a term of ten years in the state's prison upon this plea, and is now serving this sentence.
Upon the trial of the defendants in this action, the state relied upon the testimony of Jack Hunt as evidence to sustain its contention that defendant John Freeman set fire to the dwelling house; that defendant Dock Caudill set fire to the barn; and that the witness, Jack Hunt, set fire to the garage, and that they had set fire to the buildings pursuant to a conspiracy entered into by and between them to burn said buildings because C. F. Sofley had caused the arrest of Jack Hunt for selling liquor. The testimony of Jack Hunt, if believed, was amply sufficient as evidence to sustain the contentions of the state that both the defendants are guilty as charged in the indictment.
There was evidence of facts and circumstances which tended to support the testimony of Jack Hunt. Each of the defendants offered evidence in contradiction of the testimony of Jack Hunt. The evidence for each of the defendants tended to sustain his contention that he had not entered into a conspiracy with Jack Hunt to burn the buildings of C. F. Sofley, as testified by him, and that he was elsewhere when the buildings were burned.
All the evidence was submitted to the jury under instructions which are free from error. The court instructed the jury that they should consider the fact as testified by him that Jack Hunt was an accomplice of the defendants in the commission of the crime for which they were on trial, and that for this reason they should scrutinize his testimony with great care, and not accept such testimony as evidence, unless they found beyond a reasonable doubt that it was true. The instruction in this regard was in full compliance with the principles stated in State v. Ashburn, 187 N.C. 717, 122 S.E. 833. It was within the province of the jury to accept the testimony of Jack Hunt in part and to reject it in part, and thus to convict the defendant John Freeman and to acquit the defendant Dock Caudill. In the absence of error in the decisions of the trial court upon matters of law or legal inference, this court is ordinarily without jurisdiction to grant a new trial to the defendant John Freeman upon his appeal from the judgment which is supported by the verdict. Const. of N.C. art. 4, § 8. The jury believed the evidence offered by the defendant Dock Caudill tending to establish his defense based upon an alibi, and rejected the evidence offered by the defendant John Freeman to establish a similar defense. This was within their province, and the judgment and verdict cannot be set aside and a new trial granted by this court, in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction, for the reason that we find no error in the record.
The defendant John Freeman was at his home when he was arrested on a warrant charging him with arson. His wife was present at the time of the arrest, and, in the presence of the officers, said to him, "I told you, John, that you would get into it if you did not stay with me like I wanted you to do." He replied to her, "Hush."
Defendant's exception to the refusal of the court to sustain his objection to this evidence cannot be sustained. The objection was properly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Portee
...S.E. 26; State v. McKinney, 175 N.C. 784, 95 S.E. 162; State v. Randall, 170 N.C. 757, 87 S.E. 227, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 438; State v. Freeman, 197 N.C. 376, 148 S.E. 450; R. C. L. 480. The occasion, as colored by some circumstance or significant conduct on the part of the accused, is what make......
-
State v. Banks
...S.E. 227, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 438; State v. McKinney, 175 N.C. 784, 95 S.E. 162; State v. Branch, 193 N.C. 621, 137 S.E. 801; State v. Freeman, 197 N.C. 376, 148 S.E. 450. But does not apply to a case in which a confidential letter writen by a husband to his wife was procured by a party to the......
-
State v. Wilson
...S.E. 26; State v. McKinney, 175 N.C. 784, 95 S.E. 162; State v. Randall, 170 N.C. 757, 87 S.E. 227, Ann. Cas. 1918A, 438; State v. Freeman, 197 N.C. 376, 148 S.E. 450; R. C. L. 480. If it be conceded as more probable, from the foregoing epitome of the decisions on the subject, that the rema......