State v. Freeman
| Decision Date | 31 December 1856 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. RACHEL FREEMAN. |
Where evidence of facts not pertinent to the issue, was admitted, upon the assurance of the prosecuting officer, that he would introduce other facts and circumstances to connect the prisoner with the facts deposed to, and no such connecting facts were produced, it was error in the Court to leave such evidence to be considered by the jury.
INDICTMENT for ARSON, tried before his Honor, Judge DICK, at the Fall Term, 1856, of Cumberland Superior Court.
This case is sufficiently stated in the opinion of the Court.
Bailey, ( Attorney General) for the State .
Dargan, for the defendant .
The prisoner is entitled to have her case submitted to another jury. The indictment is for burning the dwelling-house of Abraham Whitfield. She is a free woman of color, and the indented servant of Mr. Whitfield. The case is silent as to any direct evidence of the prisoner's guilt. To show that she was guilty, the prosecuting officer offered to prove that two previous attempts had been made to burn the same house; one about the middle of January preceding the actual burning, and the other, on the night of the 24th of February, the day previous thereto. The introduction of this evidence was objected to by the counsel of the prisoner. The prosecuting officer then stated that “he expected to prove facts and circumstances, tending to show, that the prisoner was the person who made the attempts each time.” Upon this statement the evidence was admitted. Stript of the promise made by the State, to connect the prisoner with the attempts, there can be no doubt that the proof of them was inadmissible. See Bottoms v. Kent, 3 Jones' Rep. 154. Indeed, the connecting facts were the sole grounds upon which his Honor would have admitted the proof of the attempts. They were in the nature of a condition precedent. What are the facts upon which the State relied to connect the prisoner with them? Simply, that she was a servant in the family at the time the attempt was made. We are considering the case as it appears before us. Mrs. Whitfield, the wife of Mr. Whitfield, stated that the prisoner was employed by her as a house servant, and that there was another servant girl by the name of Lavinia, whose duty it was to make up the bed in her room, and to sweep out the house, and after that was done, it was the duty of the prisoner to dust the furniture in the room, &c. About 10 o'clock, on the morning of the day when the first attempt was made, which was about the middle of January, while sitting in the usual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. State
... ... R. A. 193 covering ... every phase of this proposition.) The court erred in failing ... to instruct the jury as to certain phases of the evidence, ... even though such instruction was not requested. ( People ... v. Montgomery, 176 N.Y. 219, 68 N.E. 258; State v ... Freeman, 49 N.C. 5; Hennesey v. State, 23 ... Tex.App. 5 S.W. 215; Burke v. State, 24 Tex.App ... 326, 6 S.W. 300; Olliver v. State, 33 Tex. Crim ... 541, 28 S.W. 202.) Where evidence of independent crimes have ... been improperly received, and apparently prejudicial to the ... rights of the ... ...
-
Smaldone v. People
... ... one was avarice, and of the other revenge for a wrong. Motive ... for committing a crime is a state of mind and is in its very ... nature several and personal to the possessor. It is, when ... shown, a circumstance tending to show criminal intent ... Honor added to it the weight of his authority, and thereby ... suffered them to be misled.' State v. Freeman, ... 49 N.C. 5, 4 Jones' Law 5. There never comes a time in a ... [88 P.2d 116] ... trial to a jury when the court may say to the jury, the ... ...
-
State v. Ward
...and others; or to show previous attempts to commit the same crime without evidence to connect the respondent with them, as in State v. Freeman, 49 N.C. 5, 4 Law 5. We should not be inclined to follow Baker v. People, 105 Ill. 452, where it was held that upon a trial for an attempt to commit......
-
State v. Brady
...whiskey there'. The testimony was irrelevant, and highly prejudicial, and should have been excluded. Failure to do so, was error. State v. Freeman, 49 N.C. 5; State v. Alston, supra. See also State v. Brown, 202 N.C. 221, 162 S.E. III. The third question challenges portions of the charge pa......