State v. Hunt

• Decision Date: 05 April 1904
• Citation: 47 S.E. 49,134 N.C. 684
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE . v. HUNT.

47 S.E. 49

134 N.C. 684

STATE .

v.HUNT.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 5, 1904.

HOMICIDE—INSTRUCTIONS—MURDER — EVIDENCE—PREMEDITATION.

1. On a prosecution for murder, a requested j Instruction that if there was an opportunity to j use a deadly weapon, but none was actually j used, the circumstance should be considered as strong evidence against willful and premeditated murder, was properly modified by striking out the word "strong."

2. Accused requested an instruction that if it was the intention of the accused to do serious bodily harm, and death ensued from injuries inflicted with such intention, accused could not he convicted of a higher crime than murder in the second degree; and the instruction was modified to the effect that if it was the intention j of the accused to do serious bodily harm, and death ensued in consequence of injuries inflicted with such intention, the accused would be i guilty of murder in the second degree. Held, that the modification was not error.

3. It appeared that, after an altercation between deceased and accused, accused followed deceased out of the store where it occurred, and ran around the store in search of him, and then followed deceased about 30 yards, and struck deceased and killed him. Accused requested' an instruction that he could not be convicted unless the jury were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that deceased was killed in pursuance of a fixed and deep-rooted purpose, with actual premeditr Hon, formed in a cool state of the blood; and the instruction was given, modified by striking out the words "and deep-rooted" before the word "purpose, " and the word "actual" before "premeditation." Held, that the instruction was not erroneous.

4. No particular time is necessary to constitute the premeditation requisite to the crime of murder.

¶ 4. See Homicide, vol. 26, Rent. Dig. §§ 20, 33.

5. On a prosecution for murder, where the circumstances do not bring the case within the language of the statute, the state must prove deliberation and premeditation.

6. Deliberation and premeditation on the part of accused on a prosecution for murder may be inferred from such circumstances as ill will, previous difficulty between the parties, and declarations of an intent to kill after or before the crime.

7. It appeared that, after an altercation between deceased and accused, accused followed deceased out of the store where it occurred, and ran around the store in search of him, and then followed deceased about 30 yards, and struck deceased and killed him. Held, that the question of premeditation and deliberation was for the jury.

8. It appeared that accused, after having an altercation with deceased, in which he assaulted deceased, followed deceased, and, while the latter was supported, and staggering from injuries previously received, he struck the fatal blow. Held that, though there was some provocation, the killing was brutal, and to be attributed to a malicious disposition, rendering the crime murder.

Appeal from Superior Court, Person County; O. H. Allen, Judge.

Adam Hunt was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

W. T. Bradsher and F. O. Carver, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK, C. J. The prisoner was convicted of murder in the first degree. The deceased was in charge of a, store belonging to his brother, who employed the prisoner as a sawmill hand. It was in evidence that the deceased had no authority to settle with the sawmill hands; that the accused went to the store that Saturday night, and stated in conversation with one West, about a half hour before the homicide, that "he would have his pay, or there would be a God d——n dead nigger there that night" He left, but returned to the store about 9 o'clock, and asked for a settlement Deceased told him he could not pay him without authority from his brother. The prisoner commenced cursing and stamping the floor. The deceased told him to hush, and started round the counter with a hammer in his hand. The prisoner jerked the hammer out of his hand and struck the counter violently, saying, "Pay me." The witness told prisoner he would go off and get the timekeeper to get prisoner's time. When he returned with the timekeeper, the prisoner had deceased down, with his knees on his breast jumping up and down on him, and beating deceased in the face. The timekeeper told him to "stop! stop!" whereupon the prisoner assaulted him, and, in the fight that followed, knocked the timekeeper down. The witness led the de-ceased towards his house, 30 yards away, holding him up and helping him along, and they were met about halfway by the wife of deceased's brother, crying. The prisoner then came on, and made at her, but she got home without being caught by him. The prisoner then ran around the witness and knocked deceased down. The prisoner then pulled off a strip about 20 feet long and tried to strike the deceased—struck trees. The deceased staggered along, half bent, trying to get into the house. The prisoner then ran up and struck the deceased a heavy blow on the head, knocking him down; his head striking the porch. Mrs. Wilkins said, "Lord! you have killed Fleetwood." The prisoner replied, "Yes; damn him! that is what I intended to do." The deceased fell entirely unconscious. The deceased was a weakly man, weighing about US pounds, and 6 feet tall. The prisoner was a powerful man for his size, and weighed 160 pounds, or 165. The deceased died of his injuries on Thursday following. The prisoner testified in his own behalf, contradicting the two state's witnesses who testified to his having deceased...