State v. Harris

• Decision Date: 31 December 1860
• Citation: 8 Jones 136,53 N.C. 136,78 Am.Dec. 272
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAM HARRIS.

8 Jones (NC) 136

53 N.C. 136

78 Am.Dec. 272

STATE

v.WILLIAM HARRIS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1860.

Where, upon the arraignment of one for murder, it was suggested that the accused was a deaf mute and was incapable of understanding the nature of a trial, and its incidents and his rights under it, it was Held proper for a jury to be empannelled to try the truth of these suggestions, and on such jury's responding in the affirmative of these suggestions, for the Court to decline putting the prisoner on his trial.

THIS was a preliminary issue on a case for MURDER, tried before BAILEY, J., at the Spring Term, 1860, of Granville Superior Court.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of one Richard Fowler, and upon his arraignment, it was suggested that the prisoner was mute by the visitation of God, having been deaf and dumb from his birth. This fact was admitted by the counsel for the State, who moved the Court to direct the clerk to enter his plea of “not guilty,” and that the trial should proceed on that issue. The defendant's counsel then objected, that he was not able to plead to the indictment and was insane, and on argument, the Court refused the motion of the solicitor for the State, and ordered that a jury enquire: 1st. Whether the prisoner, William Harris, is able to plead to the indictment preferred against him. 2ndly. Whether the said prisoner, William Harris, is now sane or not. On the trial of the issues, directed to be submitted to the jury in this case, the prosecution called sundry witnesses, who testified, in substance, that the prisoner had been a deaf mute from his infancy; that he was then between fifty and sixty years of age, and had a comfortable estate, which had always been under the management of a guardian. That when the prisoner was about fourteen years of age, his mother, with whom he lived, intermarried with one Moody Fowler, by whom she had a family of children, among whom was Richard Fowler, the deceased; that the prisoner continued to reside at the house of his step-father after he arrived at the age of majority, and the guardian of his estate paid for his board; that Richard Fowler, his half brother, was an inmate of the same house, and at the time of the homicide, and for some years before, was a married man, and his wife, after the death of his mother, some ten years since, had been the housekeeper of the family; that some three or four years before the homicide, prisoner ceased to lodge in the house of Moody Fowler, and of his own accord, first took lodging in a neighboring barn, then in a shelter, which he erected by the side of a log, and afterwards, about two years before the homicide, he constructed a small hut about the fourth of a mile distant from the house of Moody Fowler, in which he lodged until brought to prison for the alleged murder; that these lodgings were all very rude and uncomfortable, and especially, the first two had exposed him to severe suffering from cold; that during all this time, he continued to get his food at the house of said Fowler, and either ate it there or carried it with him to his lodgings; that he was not required to work, but sometimes had worked on the farm and did his work intelligently; that he spent much of his time in fishing, both with hooks and traps, the latter of which he constructed and placed in the water himself, and in hunting with a gun; that he could stock guns skillfully, and did work of that kind for himself and several neighbors, from whom he received compensation in money, and varied his charges according to his opinion of their ability to pay; that he had also made intelligent and useful suggestions to mill-wrights when engaged in the mechanical work of their trade, and one of these, a witness, testified that, in his opinion, if the prisoner had been educated, he would have made one of the first mechanics in the country. These witnesses all testified that they considered him a sensible person; that, in their opinion, he knew right from wrong, and that it was a crime to take the life of another person.--His step-father, Moody Fowler, testified that himself and others had learned to communicate with the prisoner by means of signs; that prisoner knew it was wrong to take life, and that witness, himself, had signified it to him very often before the homicide, and that the prisoner had a sign to indicate putting to death by hanging, which he often signified would be inflicted on a person who should kill another. He also stated, that he was a man of violent temper, and generally carried his gun, even when he came from his hut to the house for his food, and some four or five weeks before he had attempted or offered to shoot the deceased in the dining room of his house, when the witness interposed and prevented him. Charity Fowler, the widow of the deceased, stated that on the evening of the homicide, her husband with a friend had taken supper in the dining room and walked into another apartment of the house, leaving her at the table; that the prisoner soon afterwards came in with his gun, seeming to be very angry; that he sat down and declared to her, by a sign, that he would shoot deceased; that she remonstrated with him, that he must not, but he persisted in his declaration. She then called to her husband, in the other room, and told him not to come in there, that the prisoner said he would shoot him; that the deceased enquired what she said, and she repeated her language, as he walked into the dining room, when the prisoner fired and the deceased fell and died immediately; that prisoner went off then to his hut and did not come to the house in all the next day for his food, which he never failed to do before; that on the day following he came, when he was arrested, deprived of his gun and carried to prison.

These witnesses also, severally, testified that they believed the prisoner knew that he was then in Court, because of having killed Richard Fowler. When asked, whether they believed he could be made to understand the contents of the bill of indictment, some of them answered that they believed he could, but no one professed to able to communicate them to him; others doubted as to his ability to understand this, and none of them supposed that it could be communicated to him that he had the rights of challenge allowed by law, and that he could be made to comprehend the testimony of the witnesses and cross-examine or contradict them.

The prisoner's counsel also called several witnesses, who testified that the prisoner had never been educated in any school for deaf...