State v. Holland
| Decision Date | 31 October 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 291,291 |
| Citation | 67 S.E.2d 272,234 N.C. 354 |
| Parties | STATE, v. HOLLAND. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Kenneth D. Thomas, Hickory, for defendant, appellant.
Atty, Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, and Robert B. Broughton, member of staff, Raleigh, for the State.
The exceptions brought forward by the defendant test only the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the two consolidated cases to the jury over the defendant's motions for judgment of nonsuit, made in apt time under the provisions of G.S. § 15-173.
1. The felonious assault case.--The evidence bearing upon this case discloses that in September, 1950, William Penley, the prosecuting witness, age 22, was living in Hickory, North Carolina, and driving a taxicab. On Saturday night, September 23, 1950, between 8:00 and 9:00 o'clock, Penley picked up the defendant at Hutto's Grocery, just outside of Hickory. The defendant, after arranging with Penley to take him to North Wilkesboro, requested that they drive by Whitten's junk yard and get a friend who was to accompany the defendant. This was done. The friend was picked up at the junk yard, which is about 150 yards from where the defendant got in the cab. At the junk yard there was a building, and scrap was piled up all around it. The friend was at the back of the building. He was standing there alone. It was getting dusk dark but Penley, the taxi driver, said he could see all right. When the cab stopped, the defendant's friend got in the back seat. The defendant remained in the front seat. Penley did not know the defendant's friend,--said he had never seen him before. As he got in the cab, there was no conversation except the defendant stated, 'I used to work with this boy here.' The defendant then said he wanted to go get a drink before they went to North Wilkesboro, and after crossing the Catawba River, going toward Lenoir, the defendant told Penley to pull off at the next side road. He did so. When they had gone a short distance down the side road, the defendant requested Penley to pull off on a dirt road, and while the cab was traveling down this road it struck a small bump,--'slowed down for the bump,'--and that was the last thing Penley remembered until 'he woke up eight days later in the hospital,' suffering from serious head wounds.
Penley was found the following morning about 3:30 o'clock in his own bed at Hickory in an unconscious condition. The taxicab was parked in his yard and was locked. His glasses were broken and lying in the front seat. There was an iron pipe about 18 inches long and 1 1/2 inches in diameter lying on the front seat of the cab. It had blood on it. The cab was bloody inside,--more blood on the back than in front. Some pieces of pipe material 'were later found at the junk yard.' The evidence discloses that Penley had a fractured skull, near his right ear. The ear was cut off except for a small piece of skin holding it. He had two cuts near the right ear,--'one behind the ear and the other just a little farther behind than that one.' He had four deep cuts across his forehead, each cut being approximately four inches long. The attending physician gave as his opinion that the wounds were not produced by a knife, but by a blunt instrument. The doctor further said that Penley's unconsciousness most likely 'was produced at the time the blow was delivered.' On cross examination the doctor also stated that in his opinion a person sitting in the front seat alongside Penley could not have inflicted the lick from that angle, The prosecuting witness remained in the hospital fifteen days and did not regain his memory until some five weeks later.
John Clark, owner of the taxicab, testified that Penley called him and said he had a trip to North Wilkesboro and that he, Penley, said he knew one of the parties but did not tell who he was. R. W. Turkelson, of the State Bureau of Investigation, testified he was called in to investigate the case; that he was unable to develop any finger prints in or upon the automobile or on the iron pipe. He said he visited the area where the attack is alleged to have taken place and that 'there is no one that lives on the * * * road that winds up around the hill and there are no houses on it.' This witness further testified that Penley for a time could not remember anything that happened on the night of September 23, but later, on November 2, he told the witness that 'the fellow who had been in the cab that night used to work with him at the Blue Ridge Ice Cream Company. * * * said he didn't know his last name but that he used to call him 'Glenn',' said he knew him well. The witness found the defendant's name on the records of the Ice Cream Company and then 'Penley said that was his last name.' The witness Turkelson showed Penley a picture of the defendant and 'he said that was the man.' The defendant was arrested under warrant issued November 11, 1950. His friend who was in the cab has not been found or identified.
The foregoing evidence points unerringly to the fact that Penley's wounds were inflicted either by the defendant or by his friend who was sitting on the back seat of the taxicab. And if it be conceded, as contended by the defendant, that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he, from his seat alongside of Penley, inflicted the blow or blows, nevertheless this record impels the view that the defendant and his friend were acting by prearrangement. It was the defendant who arranged the trip. First, he engaged the cab, ostensibly for a trip to North Wilkesboro. Then, he directed the driver to go by the junk yard where the friend was waiting in semi-darkness. Next, it was the defendant who, under the pretext of going for a drink of liquor, diverted the cab from the main highway onto a lonely, deserted side road along which Penley, without previous warning, was struck with a piece of iron pipe similar to pipe found later at the junk yard where the friend was picked up. Thus, the events leading up to the assault fall into a pattern which clearly indicates concert between the defendant and his friend, and where this appears each may be found equally guilty. State v. Gibson, 226 N.C. 194, 37 S.E.2d 316; State v. Williams, 225 N.C. 182, 33 S.E.2d 880; State v. Hart, 186 N.C. 582, 120 S.E. 345; State v. Kendall, 143 N.C. 659, 57 S.E. 340; State v. Jarrell, 141...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re J.D.
...is one who gives aid and comfort, or either commands, advises, instigates or encourages another to commit a crime. State v. Holland , 234 N.C. 354, 358, 67 S.E.2d 272, 274-75 (1951). An individual's mere presence during the commission of a crime, though, does not typically constitute aiding......
-
State v. Haywood
...presence alone may be regarded as an encouragement, and in contemplation of law this is aiding and abetting." State v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354, 358, 67 S.E.2d 272, 275 (1951). See State v. Rankin, 284 N.C. 219, 223, 200 S.E.2d 182, 185 (1973) and cases cited It is a fair inference from the St......
-
State v. Williams
...v. Redfern, 246 N.C. 293, 297-98, 98 S.E.2d 322, 326 (1957). The present case can be distinguished from such cases as State v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354, 67 S.E.2d 272 (1951), and State v. Murphy, 225 N.C. 115, 33 S.E.2d 588 (1945), in which the victims were rendered unconscious by the defendan......
-
State v. Beach
...is one who gives aid and comfort, or either commands, advises, instigates or encourages another to commit a crime.' State v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354, 358, 67 S.E.2d 272, 274; State v. Johnson, 220 N.C. 773, 776, 18 S.E.2d 358. '. . . Mere presence, even with the intention of assisting in the ......