State v. Hedgebeth
Decision Date | 10 December 1947 |
Docket Number | 76 |
Parties | STATE v. HEDGEBETH. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The motion of defendant Hedgebeth to set aside the verdict and judgment rendered against him at a previous term of the court, and for a new trial, was heard by Judge Burgwyn at the July Term, 1947, of the Superior Court of Washington County.
Upon the record, the defendant's petition and affidavits, and the oral testimony of Sheriff Reid, the following judgment was entered:
The writ of habeas corpus having been discharged, and defendant's motion denied, the defendant petitioned the Supreme Court of North Carolina for writ of certiorari, which was allowed, and in response to the writ the record was presented to this Court for review.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Wilford L. Whitley, Jr., of Plymouth, for Chester Hedgebeth.
The defendant Hedgebeth asks us to review the judgment below, assigning as grounds for relief that in the trial in the Superior Court of Washington County his constitutional rights were violated and due process of law denied him, in that he was without counsel, that he was not aware or informed of his rights, and that he was put upon his trial for the alleged commission of a serious felony within too short a time after his arrest. He alleges his innocence of the crime charged against him.
From the findings of fact made by the Judge who heard the defendant's motion below, based upon the averments in his petition and the oral evidence heard, upon which defendant's motion was denied, it sufficiently appears that on December 28, 1946, defendant Hedgebeth and one Andrew Chesson were arrested charged with assault with deadly weapon and robbery of a sum of money from the person of Delmer Wilkins, and that on December 31, 1946, these two defendants were tried in the Recorder's Court of Washington County, and probable cause having been found, were placed under bond for their appearance at the next term of the Superior Court of the county. The required bond of $500 was not given and the defendants remained in jail. The next term of the Superior Court began January 6, 1947. At this term bill of indictment in due form charging the defendants with the felony of robbery was returned by the grand jury a true bill, and during the term the case was called for trial. Each defendant pleaded not guilty. Inquiry was made of them by the presiding Judge Frizzelle if they had counsel, to which they answered in the negative. No counsel was assigned, nor was the assignment of counsel requested. The trial apparently was conducted in accordance with correct procedure in this jurisdiction and no criticism in that respect is offered. The defendant Hedgebeth voluntarily went on the stand and testified as a witness in his own behalf, his testimony tending to show he was not guilty. In the absence of suggestions to the contrary, under the rule in this State, it will be presumed the trial judge correctly instructed the jury as to the law and facts of the case. G.S. s 1-180; State v. Hargrove, 216 N.C. 570, 5 S.E.2d 852; Bell v. Brown, 227 N.C. 319, 322, 42 S.E.2d 92. The jury returned verdict of guilty as to both defendants, and they were sentenced to State's Prison for terms of nine to ten years.
The record further discloses that defendant Hedgebeth was a tenant farmer, resident in Washington County, and 24 years of age; that his schooling did not extend beyond the third grade; and that his father and mother lived in another county some 58 miles from the place of trial. The judge who heard the motion also found that the wife of the defendant resided in Washington County, and that she had knowledge of his incarceration and of the nature of the crime charged. The defendant makes the point that this last mentioned fact does not appear in the written record. However, as the judge heard the oral testimony of the sheriff, which was not sent up, it will be presumed his finding was based on evidence he heard, in the absence of some showing to the contrary. Clayton Banking Co. v. Farmer's Bank, 211 N.C. 328, 190 S.E. 472.
The defendant's evidence, and particularly the affidavit of his father, would tend to indicate that the defendant was ignorant and unacquainted with business or legal affairs that he had not been arrested before and was inexperienced in court procedure; that he was not of average mentality; that his father was not informed of his arrest, and, if he had been so advised in time, would have procured counsel. However, it was found by the judge from the evidence before him, 'that the defendant had sufficient mental capacity to realize the nature of the charge against him and had opportunity, had he been financially able to so do, and desired to so do, to procure counsel. ' The defendant and his counsel were present at the hearing. The charge in the bill of indictment...
To continue reading
Request your trial