State v. Hairston
| Citation | 109 S.E. 45,182 N.C. 851 |
| Decision Date | 09 November 1921 |
| Docket Number | 377. |
| Parties | STATE v. HAIRSTON. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Stokes County; Finley, Judge.
Bunk Hairston was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he appeals. No error.
In prosecution for murder, striking out the testimony of defendant that he fled from his home because he was warned that a mob was looking for him, if error, was cured by its admission later and by a charge that defendant fled because of being warned of danger from a mob.
Wm. P Bynum, of Greensboro, McMichael & Johnson, of Winston-Salem and Folger, Jackson & Folger, of Mount Airy, for appellant.
James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant assigns only three errors on this appeal. Exceptions 1, 2, and 3. It appears that, on April 18, 1920 some dozen or fifteen negro men were congregated in and about a café and soft-drink stand of Nick Hairston in the village of Walnut Cove, when the firing of pistols attracted the attention of citizens of the town. Sheriff R. P. Joyce, taking with him Mr. Matthis and the witness Neal, went up to the stand. Neal was asked:
The defendant objected to this question and answer on the ground that they were immaterial and irrelevant. But the defendant Bunk Hairston denied that he had a pistol at all on that occasion, and certainly this evidence was material for this reason. Again the same witness, Neal, was asked:
It would seem that this evidence was very material, as showing that these parties, accompanying the sheriff in his attempt to prevent a general row, were rightly on the premises. As a matter of fact, both Sheriff Joyce and Mr. Matthis were killed inside the stand by pistol shots, and the defendant was being tried for the killing of the sheriff. There was direct evidence that the defendant, Bunk Hairston, fired the shot which killed the sheriff.
Defendant's exception 6, assignment of error 3, was taken under the following circumstances: The defendant, Bunk Hairston, was on the stand testifying in his own behalf, and said that he had no pistol over there, and nothing to do with the killing of Sheriff Joyce or of Mr. Matthis. After the killing he seems to have gone off, and was arrested about a mile from Walnut Cove. He testified further:
"I went home, was fixing to go to church that night, and while standing by the dresser combing my hair, my coat and hat off, a white man came to the window, tapped on it, and told me that I had better look out, that a mob was looking for me, and I had better leave."
Upon the state's objection, this evidence was stricken out, and defendant excepted. It is quite probable that the defendant was entitled to this testimony, and that the ruling of the judge, standing alone, upon that testimony may have been error. But it does not stand alone, because he expressly states on his cross-examination:
Again, on redirect examination:
In stating the contentions of defendant on this point, the judge charged the jury that when he left it was because he was informed that they were looking for him. He left for fear of being lynched, or receiving bodily harm, and not as a result of the consciousness of guilt. Thus the defendant had the full benefit of the evidence stricken out before, and the error, if one was committed at first in excluding the evidence, was corrected by permitting the same evidence to come in afterwards, or, at most, the error became harmless.
We have treated the testimony concerning what was said to the defendant at his home when he was preparing to go to church as in the record, because it is afterwards referred to in the charge. This testimony, the subject of the fourth assignment of error, was offered for the purpose of explaining defendant's flight after the homicide. The defendant's objection to the exclusion of the evidence is based upon the fact that witnesses testified for the state, that the defendant fled immediately after the killing, offering this as some evidence of his guilt, and that he was apprehended near Dr. J. W. Slate's, about a mile from Walnut Cove, a day or two after the killing. In some way this testimony is not set out in the record, though it was offered by defendant and is referred to incidentally in the record and in the charge...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Steele
... ... Wigmore on Evidence ... (2d Ed.) §§ 32, 172, 267, 273, 276 (see elaborate note ... appended to this section showing the holdings of the federal ... and state courts); State v. Tate, 161 N.C. 280, 76 ... S.E. 713; State v. Westmoreland, 181 N.C. 595, 107 ... S.E. 438; State v. Hairston, 182 N.C. 851, 109 S.E ... 45; State v. Collins, 189 N.C. 20, 126 S.E. 98; ... State v. Stewart, 189 N.C. 347, 127 S.E. 260. The ... basis of this rule is that a guilty conscience influences ... conduct. From time immemorial it has been thus accepted: ... "The ... wicked ... ...
-
State v. Payne
... ... 256; State v ... Lawrence, 196 N.C. 562, 146 S.E. 395 ... Flight ... is competent evidence to be considered by the jury in ... connection with other circumstances in passing upon the ... question of guilt. State v. Malonee, 154 N.C. 200, ... 69 S.E. 786; State v. Hairston, 182 N.C. 851, 109 ... S.E. 45; State v. Stewart, 189 N.C. 340, 127 S.E ... 260; State v. Steele, 190 N.C. 506, 130 S.E. 308; ... State v. Adams, 191 N.C. 526, 132 S.E. 281; ... State v. Mull, 196 N.C. 351, 145 S.E. 677; State ... v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604; State v. Lawrence, ... ...
-
State v. Lawrence
... ... 286 [76 S.E. 715], it is held: 'But such flight ... or concealment of the accused, while it raised no presumption ... of law as to guilt, is competent evidence to be considered by ... the jury in connection with the other circumstances. 12 Cyc ... 395; 21 Cyc. 941."' State v. Hairston", 182 N.C. 851, ... 109 S.E. 45; State v. Stewart, 189 N.C. at page 347, ... 127 S.E. 260; State v. Adams, 191 N.C. at page 527, ... 132 S.E. 281; State v. Mull, 196 N.C. 351, 145 S.E ... 677; Commonwealth v. Madeiros, 255 Mass. 304, 151 ... N.E. 297, 47 A. L. R. 962 ... \xC2" ... ...
-
State v. Jones
...cited. Thus the degree or nature of the flight is of great importance to the jury in weighing its probative force. See State v. Hairston, 182 N.C. 851, 109 S.E. 45 (1921); State v. Malonee, 154 N.C. 200, 69 S.E. 786 (1910). For example, it is likely that a jury would attach a different sign......