State v. Harris

• Decision Date: 30 June 1868
• Citation: 63 N.C. 1
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. YOUNG HARRIS.

63 N.C. 1

STATE

v.YOUNG HARRIS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1868.

There being evidence that the deceased came to his death by the infliction of whippings by the prisoner, whilst the latter insisted that the death was caused by a burn of which there was an appearance on the abdomen, the testimony of a physician that in his opinion the burn was inflicted after death, was admissible in support of other evidence for the prosecution.

The evidence being closed on both sides, upon the defendant being permitted to recall a witness to explain a part of his testimony, it is within the discretion of the Judge to forbid the examination of the witness as to new matter.

The prisoner and a woman offered as a witness in his behalf having lived together as husband and wife while they were slaves, and having subsequently observed the ceremonies required by the Act of 1866, ch. 40, s. 5: Held that they were legally married, and her testimony properly excluded.

Although the law allows to a person in loco parentis the broadest latitude in governing, it is not necessary to prove express malice on his part in order to convict of murder, if the facts show such cruelty and inhumanity in whipping as exclude the idea of passion.

It being a question whether a severe injury, supposed to be a burn, was received by the deceased before death, it was competent for the prisoner to show that the deceased said he had a large burn upon his abdomen; such declarations being admissible as natural evidence.

( State v. Samuel, 2 Dev. & Bat. 177; Roulhac v. White, 9 Ire., 63; Biles v. Holmes, 11 Ire., 16; Lush v. McDaniel, 13 Ire., 485; Bell v. Morrisett, 6 Jon., 178, and Henderson v. Crouse, 7 Jon., 623, cited and approved.)

MURDER, tried before Mitchell, J., at Spring Term 1868, of the Superior Court of ROWAN.

The prisoner, a colored man, was indicted together with one Jane Harris, who had lived with him as his wife while they were slaves and after emancipation had continued to live with him having complied with the requirements of the Act of 1866, ch. 40; but he was put upon trial alone. The deceased, a boy eighteen or nineteen years old, was the illegitimate son of Jane, and it was alleged that he came to his death in consequence of numerous and severe beatings upon his naked body, inflicted by the prisoner every day for a week, with a large leather strap, a bed cord twice doubled and knotted, and an iron ramrod--the alleged offence being that he had begged a piece of meat from a neighbor, and had denied doing so. At the end of the week he died.

The witness to the beating was a girl named Louisa Harris. Dr. Fraley was also examined as a witness for the State, having been previously called upon by the coroner to examine the body. His testimony tended to corroborate that of Louisa Harris--by showing that the back, loins and sides of the deceased were covered with bruises, &c. The theory of the defence was that the deceased came to his death by a burn, of which there was an appearance on his abdomen. Dr. Fraley testified that in his opinion this was caused by fire applied after the death. The prisoner introduced Dr. Jones and Dr. Whitehead, who testified that from the description of the burn given by Dr. Fraley, it had occurred before death. The prisoner offered Jane Harris as a witness, but the Court ruled her to be incompetent. He then introduced his son Wallace Harris, who testified that about a week before deceased died, he was burning a brush-heap, and on getting upon it the flames flashed as high as his waist, when he jumped off and ran to a branch near by; and that the deceased showed him a burn on his leg. The prisoner offered to prove by this witness that the deceased told him he was burned on the abdomen, but his Honor excluded the declaration.

*2 After it was announced by both sides that the evidence was closed, the prisoner's counsel obtained leave to recall Dr. Jones, to explain part of his testimony. They then proposed to examine him upon other points; but the Court refused to allow the examination to proceed further.

The charge of the Court and the exceptions thereto are sufficiently set forth in the opinion of the Court.

Verdict, Guilty. Rule for a new trial discharged. Judgment, and Appeal.

Attorney General, for the State .

Boyden & Bailey and J. E. Kerr, contra .

READE, J.

*3 In considering the legal questions involved, we hope that we have not allowed ourselves to be unduly influenced by the cruel and inhuman acts detailed in the evidence.

1. In considering the first exception on the part of the defendant, it is to be recollected that the theory of the defence was that the deceased did not come to his death by the whippings, but in consequence of a severe burn on the abdomen.

Dr. Fraley was introduced by the State, and gave it as his opinion that the burn was received after death. This testimony was left to the jury by his Honor, as tending to corroborate the evidence of the girl, and the theory of the prosecution. We see no force in the exception to it by the prisoner.

The opinion of the Doctor as an expert, was clearly admissible, and, if his opinion was well founded, it proved the defendant's theory, that the deceased came to his death by the burn--to be false, and it tended to corroborate the testimony of the girl.

2. After the evidence was closed on both sides, the defendant's counsel asked leave to recall a witness to make an explanation of some point in his testimony. He was permitted to do so. After the explanation was made, the counsel attempted to extend the examination to new matter. This was refused by the Court, and the defendant excepted again.

It was clearly within his Honor's discretion whether he would allow the witness to be recalled, and it was as clearly within his discretion to prescribe the terms, and to limit the examination.

It would be unjust to the counsel to suppose that there was any attempt to entrap the Court by proposing to recall the witness for a simple explanation, when the real purpose was to open the evidence anew; and so we take it that the only purpose in recalling the witness was, to explain. Therefore, as soon as the explanation was given it was legitimate for his Honor to stop the examination.

3. The defendant offered Jane Harris as a witness. The defendant and Jane while slaves, cohabited as man and wife. After their emancipation they observed the ceremonies prescribed by the statute of 1866, chap. 40, sec. 5. That statute provides that “the parties shall be deemed to have been lawfully married as man and wife at the time of the...