State v. Griffis
| Decision Date | 30 June 1843 |
| Citation | 25 N.C. 504,3 Ired. 504 |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN A. GRIFFIS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
On the trial of an indictment for assault and battery, in order to shew some motive of resentment, on the part of the defendant, it was competent for the State to prove that the prosecutor had said in the defendant's hearing, a short time before, “that no honest man would avail himself of the bankrupt law,” and then to prove further that the defendant's father had previ. ously been talking about taking the benefit of that act.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Johnston County, at Spring Term, 1842, his Honor Judge MANLY presiding.
This was an indictment for an assault and battery on one George W. Daughtry. On the trial it appeared there had been a political wrangle between Daughtry and a company assembled at a vendue in Johston county, which was continued into the twilight of the evening, until nearly dark. At that time, while Daughtry and one of his friends were engaged in conversation apart from the assembly, some one from behind struck Daughtry three blows with a knife, two of which wounded him. As he received the third blow, he caught around and seized the hand of a man, who, upon being led to the light, was identified as the defendant John A. Griffis. Immediately after the commission of the offence, the defendaut was charged with it, and did not deny it. It was also in proof, that there was no one near enough to Daughtry at the time of the blows, to strike him, except the defendant. No one saw the blows given; and there was no proof of any quarrel between Daughtry and the defendant. But in behalf of the State it was proved that Daughtry declared in the crowd in the course of the dispute, that no honest man would avail himself of the late bankrupt law of Congress, and, in connection with that declaration, a witness was called, and proved that he had heard the defendant's father previously talking about taking the benefit of that act. This evidence was objected to on the part of the defendant, but admitted by the court, as tending to establish some motive in the defendant for the act, with which he was charged, and thus to throw light upon the question of his guilt. The jury found the defendant guilty, and a new trial having been refused and judgment rendered pursuant to the verdict, the defendant appealed.
Attorney General for the State .
J. H. Bryan for the defendant .
The testimony, to which the defendant has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Caddell
...truth of the matters so stated. Thus, they are not objectionable as hearsay. State v. Crump, 277 N.C. 573, 585, 178 S.E.2d 366; State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Brandis Revision, § Testimony of Officer Marshall concerning statements made to him by Miss Sutt......
-
State v. Kirkman, 13
...in fact, made. State v. Caddell, 287 N.C. 266, 215 S.E.2d 348 (1975); State v. Crump, 277 N.C. 573, 178 S.E.2d 366 (1971); State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504 (1843); Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence (Brandis Rev., 1973), § These assignments of error are overruled. David Beal, an agent of the S......
-
State v. Grier
...another person said is inadmissible hearsay if it is offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter being asserted. State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504 (1843); 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence § 138 (2d ed. Brandis Revision 1973); Powers, The North Carolina Hearsay Rule and the Uniform Rules of......
-
State v. Burke
...for any purpose other than that of proving the truth of the matter asserted therein, it is not objectionable as hearsay. State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504 (1843). Statements which are offered for their own purposes, such as to explain nonverbal conduct, may be received into evidence for a nonhe......