State v. Hooks
| Decision Date | 07 April 1948 |
| Docket Number | 361. |
| Parties | STATE v. HOOKS. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The defendant was brought to trial on an indictment charging him with raping one Ora Hughes Bouldin. The evidence was substantially as follows:
Mrs Bouldin testified that she was at home on the night of the occurrence, in her house near Archdale with her two children one about seven and the other about 11. That she didn't know Buster Hooks by name, but had seen him pass the house twice a day going to and from his house which was about one and one-half miles from her house; that there are three or four houses with colored people up there.
After she had gone to bed and got to sleep she heard a noise--heard matches striking, and saw the defendant at the foot of her bed. She jumped up, screaming, and ran to the door. Before she could get it open the defendant reached her and took her by the throat, and choked her so that she turned blind. As she tried to "holler" he choked and cursed her, and threatened to kill them all. She jerked loose and tried to reach the door again and he knocked her back, and in her second attempt to get to the door he knocked her down. When she came to he knocked her to the floor again, and then completed the act of sexual intercourse. The little girls were still in bed.
She testified that when he got ready to leave he asked her if she had any idea who he was, and she told him no. Then he asked her if she'd ever seen him before, and she replied that she had not, but she had seen him pass the road every day and she knew where he lived. He had never been to her house for anything. He then told her he was a convict, cursed her and told her not to turn on the light until he got out of the house. In going out he ran into the piano, and stepped on the little 11-year-old girl.
Witness saw him after he got out of the house, running in the direction of his home. While in the house he was barefoot but he had on his shoes when he left, going down the road.
Witness got the children and ran to a house back of the barn. She was afraid the defendant might see her if she tried to cross the road. She went to Mr. Harrington's who lives on their place. His daughter married Calhoun and he was also there.
The sheriff came while she was there. She told them who she thought the man was, where he lived. That morning, about daylight, a deputy brought the man in and witness identified him. She had seen him pass the house every morning and evening, walking on the hard surface to and from Archdale. A photograph of the witness taken after the occurrence, showing bruises, was identified and used to illustrate her evidence.
Witness was carried to the hospital where she remained a few days and then went to the home of a brother. Witness exhibited to the jury the marks she said defendant made on her neck, which she said were made by "the Hooks man."
The defendant, she testified, entered the house through a bedroom window. The doors were all locked. She was sleeping in the livingroom.
The cross-examination brought a reiteration of the same matter.
Dr Croom testified that he examined the prosecutrix the morning of the 16th and found a fresh bruise just anterior to the left ear, and multiple scratch marks on the left side of the neck, extending from the angle of the jaw to the midline of the neck, and a scratch under the right collar bone. She was in a state of nervous collapse. The scratches, in his opinion, were caused by finger nails, and the bruise on the side of her face was caused by a blow from a semi-solid object. She was admitted to the hospital about mid-morning and was in his care until the 18th, and was seen again in his office the 23rd of August.
Betsy Bouldin, daughter of the prosecutrix, testified that she was ten years old, and in the fifth grade in school. On the night of the 16th, she was sleeping on a pallet in the livingroom. The witness then corroborated her mother as to what took place and identified the defendant as the man who assaulted her mother. She said she had seen him pass the house frequently.
P.E Calhoun testified that prosecutrix came to his house about morning of the 16th. He first heard her screaming and when he opened the door she ran in, accompanied by her little children.
When witness undertook to tell what she said, attorneys for defendant objected, and the court instructed the jury that it was admitted for the purpose of corrobating Mrs. Bouldin and not as substantive evidence. Calhoun then said Mrs. Bouldin stated a colored man had broken into her house. Witness said she was in a hysterical condition. She had these marks on her neck. Witness had the sheriff called, and they went to Buster Hooks' home and saw him in the house--he had no clothes on but later put on blue overalls and blue shirt, black saddletop shoes with buckle. They carried Hooks back to Calhoun's house, where Mrs. Bouldin was much agitated at seeing him. She declared that he was the man.
On cross-examination the witness stated that Mrs. Bouldin was very disturbed. When she first got there she said somebody had broken in her house.
R.L. White was asked to testify to a statement made by Mrs. Bouldin before him at the Calhoun's house, and on objection was permitted to testify, as corroborative of Mrs. Bouldin only,
Objection, overruled, exception.
W.B. Lassiter testified that he is an officer of the County. That Mrs. Bouldin had told him a darky had broken into her house and attacked her. (Admitted for purpose of corroboration only). She said she did not know who it was, but he lived up the road in the third house.
When the defendant was brought before them at the Calhoun place both the prosecutrix and her daughter identified him. The defendant denied that he had been in the house. Hooks made no effort to escape. He did not seem excited or scared; witness stated that he was the jailer; knew the other colored man who lived in the third house.
A.E. Garner, presented as a fingerprint expert, testified to his training and experience in that line or skill, and, over the objection and exception of the defendant, was admitted to testify as an expert. His testimony was to the effect that he had taken photographs of the backroom window, which were used to illustrate the evidence. On the inside of the window sill witness found several prints, not many of them good. Witness took pictures of a few of them. Witness referred to an enlarged photograph of the fingerprints of the right ring finger of defendant. State's exhibit E.
The court: "The Court wil allow the introduction of the fingerprint as found on the frame of the screen of the home of Mrs. Bouldin and also the fingerprints of defendant for the purpose of identification." Objection by defendant. Overruled, and defendant excepts. (Witness takes exhibits C and E.)
Witness testified that Exhibit E was taken from the right ring finger of Buster Hooks' hand. The other exhibit was taken from the frame of the screen at Mrs. Bouldin's. Witness then compared the exhibits in detail and stated they were identical, and added, "In my experience and work I have never found two fingerprints alike unless they came from the same finger."
Cross-examined, the witness testified that he had picked the best pictures to be enlarged; that he had photographed all fingerprints found. It could be possible somebody else had left some fingerprints there; couldn't swear all are the same as those;
There would be some similarity in fingerprints in some cases--
W.P. Whitley, admitted by defendant to be an expert, testified that he had charge of the City-County Identification Bureau at Raleigh and had been in that work 22 years. He had examined Exhibit D containing a complete set of fingerprints on a card marked Buster Hooks and found that fingerprints on five or six of the photographs corresponded with fingerprints on that card. That he examined Exhibits C and E and found points in the prints from 1 to 12 corresponded exactly. Witness stated he was positive the prints were from one and the same person.
On...
To continue reading
Request your trial