State v. Haywood
| Decision Date | 30 June 1867 |
| Citation | 61 N.C. 376 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BANVESTER HAYWOOD. |
*1 Evidence making a mere ground for conjecture that a homicide was accidental, is to be regarded as no evidence.
Upon trials for murder, a killing by the prisoner having been proved, the burden of proof shifts to the prisoner.
When it was shown that the prisoner killed the deceased by shooting, and made his escape, and afterwards said he had killed deceased but did not know that the gun was loaded, the fact that the gun was out of order and would not stand at half-cock, did not make it error for the Judge to refuse to charge that “if the prisoner was handling the gun in a careless and negligent manner, and it accidentally went off, the killing was mitigated to manslaughter,” there being no evidence of negligent handling or accident.
A charge upon the subject of insanity in criminal cases commended.
( Sutton v. Maare, 2 Jon., 320, cited and approved.)
MURDER, tried before Green, J., at May Term, 1867, of the criminal court of CRAVEN.
The prisoner, a colored man, was indicted for killing Tilicha Keyes, a colored woman. The deceased lived with the family of one Foreman, who kept a grocery. The prisoner and a brother had been drinking at the shop the day before the homicide. On the day of the homicide the prisoner had been in the shop, but went out and soon returned armed with a gun and pistol. As he entered he laid the pistol on the counter, and said “What in the hell is that you say,” holding the muzzle of the gun to the head of the deceased and firing. She fell dead, and he immediately dropped the gun, took up the pistol and made his escape. He was arrested soon after, and made the declaration that he had killed the deceased but did not know that the gun was loaded. There was no evidence of ill will or a quarrel between the prisoner and the deceased at any time.
It was in proof that the lock of the gun was out of order, and would not stand at half-cock. It was shown for the prisoner that his father was insane, and under confinement at the time of his death; that the prisoner's “disposition was peculiar;” also that he had taken no food on the day of the homicide.
The prisoner's counsel contended that there was evidence of the accidental firing of the gun; and asked the court to “charge that if the prisoner was handling the gun in a careless and negligent manner and it accidentally went off, the prisoner would not be guilty of murder, but of manslaughter.” His Honor refused, on the ground that there was no evidence to sustain that view of the case. The prisoner excepted.
The prisoner's counsel contended that “If subject to an insanity inherited from his father, the prisoner acted at the time under delusion excited by abstinence from food, and by the use of intoxicating liquors, amounting to insanity, he would be entitled to an acquittal.” On this subject his Honor charged the jury as follows:
“That if the prisoner, at the time he committed the homicide, was in a state to comprehend his relations to other persons, the nature of the act and its criminal character, or, in other words, if he was conscious of doing wrong at the time he committed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Creech, 218.
..." the law does not hold him accountable for his acts, for guilt arises from volition, and not from a diseased mind. State v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 376. We are aware of the criticism of this standard by some psychiatrists and others. Still, the critics have offered nothing better. It has the meri......
-
State v. Creech
......They then took the. defendant to the sheriff's office. . . On the. next day, Dr. Watson Wharton saw the defendant, said he. appeared to be having a 'hang-over' from being drunk. He took a specimen of his blood at about 12:20 P. M. and sent. it to Dr. Haywood Taylor at Duke University for examination. and laboratory analysis. Dr. Wharton gave it as his opinion. that '12 hours prior to my examination he was not in. condition, by reason of drunkenness, to understand and weigh. the nature and consequences of his acts.'. . . Dr. ......
-
State v. Harris, 651.
...jury of his inability to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of and in relation to the alleged criminal act. State v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 376; State v. Sewell, 48 N.C. 245. The test of responsibility is the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time and in respect ......
-
State v. Harris
...the jury of his inability to distinguish between right and wrong at the time of and in relation to the alleged criminal act. State v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 376; State Sewell, 48 N.C. 245. The test of responsibility is the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong at the time and in respect......