State v. Grass
| Decision Date | 07 April 1943 |
| Docket Number | 362. |
| Citation | 25 S.E.2d 193,223 N.C. 31 |
| Parties | STATE v. GRASS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecutions tried upon indictments charging the defendant in one bill, with the murder of W.A. Godwin, and in another with the murder of Annie Lee Stafford, consolidated and tried together, as both homicides arose out of a single occurrence from shots fired in close succession.
The record discloses that the defendant and his wife owned a house in the mill village of Kannapolis, Cabarrus County, the title being vested in them as tenants by the entirety; that the defendant objected to his wife's relatives living with them and had ordered them to leave; that on the night of October 1, 1942, the defendant came home and asked his wife if her father, W.A. Godwin, was there; that on being informed he was, the defendant went into the room where his father-in-law and his wife's sister, Annie Lee Stafford were and opened fire, killing both of them.
There is evidence that the feme deceased was shot first, and that a struggle ensued between the defendant and his father-in-law before the latter was shot.
Later that night, the defendant told the officers, one of whom was the coroner of the county, "I went down there to kill them and that is what I done and there is one thing I regret about it, that I didn't kill my wife".
On the trial, the defendant contended that he shot his father-in-law in self-defense, and that his sister-in-law was accidentally hit. He stated that he did not remember confessing the crime and that the confession, if any, was made while he was drunk.
Verdicts: In No. 2326 wherein the defendant is charged with the murder of Annie Lee Stafford, "Guilty of murder in the second degree."
In No. 2326A wherein the defendant is charged with the murder of W.A. Godwin, "Guilty of murder in the first degree."
Judgments: In No. 2326, imprisonment in the State's prison for a period of 30 years not to run concurrently with any other sentence and not to postpone or affect the sentence of death in the other case consolidated herewith.
In No. 2326A, death by asphyxiation.
Defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and George B. Patton and Hughes J. Rhodes, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
A.A. Tarlton, of Charlotte, and J.F. Sossomon, of Concord, for defendant.
We have here for determination, (1) the competency or admissibility in evidence of certain alleged confessions, and (2) the correctness of the charge.
The testimony of the officers, relative to statements made by the defendant shortly after the homicides, is challenged on two grounds, first, because the defendant was not cautioned or advised of his rights as required by C.S. § 4561, and, second, for that the statements were made by the defendant while he was drunk.
First, in respect of the failure to inform the defendant that he was at liberty to refuse to answer any questions, and that such refusal could not thereafter be used to his prejudice, it is enough to say the provisions of C.S. § 4561 are applicable only to preliminary judicial examinations. State v. Grier, 203 N.C. 586, 166 S.E. 595. Here, the questioning of the defendant was not in a judicial proceeding, as was the case in State v. Matthews, 66 N.C. 106, cited and relied upon by the defendant. Cf. McNabb v. United States, 63 S.Ct. 608, 87 L.Ed. 819, decided March 1, 1943.
Second, as to the alleged drunkenness of the defendant when the confessions were elicited, the challenge does not seem to have been made on this ground. It is true, the defendant later testified that he was drunk when questioned by the officers, which the officers denied, but there was no request to strike out the confessions or to withdraw them from the consideration of the jury, as was done in the case of State v. Anderson, 208 N.C. 771, 182 S.E. 643.
The competency of an alleged confession is a preliminary question for the trial court, State v. Andrew, 61 N.C. 205, to be determined in the manner pointed out in State v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603, and the court's ruling thereon is not reviewable on appeal, unless accompanied by some imputed error of law or legal inference. State v. Manning, 221 N.C. 70, 18 S.E.2d 821.
It is to be noted the confessions are not assailed for involuntariness. "Unless challenged, the voluntariness of a confession will be taken for granted". State v Wagstaff, 219 N.C. 15, 12 S.E.2d 657, 659. A free and voluntary confession by one guilty of a crime affords testimony of the highest credibility and usually of a character which may be easily verified. On the other hand, open and frank responses by innocent persons arrested under misapprehension are generally powerful aids in securing their prompt discharge from custody. "Confessions are to be taken as prima facie voluntary and admissible in evidence, unless the party against whom they are offered allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial