State v. Hooker

• Decision Date: 28 January 1935
• Docket Number: 721.
• Parties: STATE v. HOOKER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

178 S.E. 75

207 N.C. 648

STATE v. HOOKER.

No. 721.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

January 28, 1935

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; Hill, Special Judge.

Jack Hooker was convicted of murder in the first degree, with sentence of death by electrocution, and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

Appeal from conviction of first-degree murder with death sentence must be dismissed, where defendant prosecuting appeal in forma pauperis failed to serve statement of case on appeal within time and filed no brief in reviewing court and no error appeared on face of record.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.

STACY Chief Justice.

The evidence on behalf of the state tends to show that on March 4, 1934, the defendant shot and killed Sallie Anderson under circumstances indicative of a mind fatally bent on mischief and a heart devoid of social duties. On the day of the homicide, the deceased was in her apartment, in company with Bryce Mobley and others, when the defendant appeared at the door and said: "Sallie, when I am talking to you I can't tell you a damned thing. Bryce can. Come here, I have got something to tell you." The defendant and the deceased went into an adjoining room, "walking side by side." Pretty soon three pistol shots were heard and Sallie Anderson was seen to fall across the bed mortally wounded. Several of the guests fled from the scene.

The defendant contended that the shooting was accidental, but the jury rejected this theory of the killing.

Notice of appeal was given in open court, and the defendant was allowed to prosecute the same in forma pauperis; but this has not been done in accordance with the rules governing such procedure. State v. Brown, 206 N.C. 747, 175 S.E 116. In the first place, the defendant's statement of case on appeal was not served on the solicitor until some time in July, 1934, long after the time for serving the same had expired, Smith v. Smith, 199 N.C. 463, 154 S.E 737, though this may have been extended or waived Roberts v. Bus Co., 198 N.C. 779, 153 S.E. 398, and nothing more has been done. State v. Ray, 206 N.C 736, 175 S.E. 109; Weaver v. Hampton, 206 N.C. 741, 175 S.E. 110. In the next place, no brief has been filed for the appellant in this court, which works an abandonment of the assignments of error, State v. Lea, 203 N.C. 13, 164 S.E. 737, and no error appears on the face of the record. State...