State v. Hunter

Decision Date28 February 1886
Citation94 N.C. 829
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. R. S. HUNTER.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

INDICTMENT for an escape, tried before Clark, Judge, and a jury, at November Special Criminal Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of WAKE county.

It was admitted that the defendant was the deputy sheriff of Alamance county. Ths State then offered in evidence the original bound volume of the records of Wayne Superior Court, produced in Court and proved by the Clerk of the Superior Court of Wayne county, for the purpose of showing that the escaped prisoner had been indicted in Wayne county for larceny, and also proved by the same officer, the original capias issued by the Clerk of said Court to the sheriff of Alamance county, with the original return thereon, signed R. S. Hunter, deputy shff.” This evidence being objected to, the objection was overruled and evidence admitted.

The State then offered the original bill of indictment, and the endorsement thereon, brought from the records of Wayne Superior Court. To this defendant objected; objection overruled, and evidence admitted.

After all the evidence was in, and one counsel had addressed the jury, there being a pause for a few minutes, a member of the bar, who appeared for one Evans, who was indicted in a separate bill for the same offence, rose and said, that he wished to enter a submission, without stating in what case. Defendant's counsel objected. The Court remarked that if he wished to enter a submission, he could do so while the Court was waiting. The counsel then said he wished to submit for Henderson Evans; that he had examined the evidence; that Henderson was certainly guilty, but Hunter was more guilty than he. The Court promptly interfered and stopped the counsel, and also told the jury to disregard and put out of their minds this statement; that it was not evidence, and they should not consider it, and that the Court would not have allowed the remark, if it could have prevented it. The counsel for defendant excepted.

The State introduced Evans, who was indicted in another bill for the same escape, who testified that the defendant was deputy sheriff of Alamance county; that, being summoned by defendant, he aided him in the arrest of the prisoner upon papers from Wayne county; that prisoner offered to pay expenses of defendant and witness to Goldsboro, if defendant would take him direct, instead of carrying him to Alamance jail; and further testified among other things, that after they left Raleigh, prisoner said he wanted to see a friend in the second class car; that defendant told him that he might go; that prisoner went, under that permission, into said car, unaccompanied by any guard; that defendant did not go with prisoner, nor did he tell witness to go; that afterwards he, witness, went of his own accord, and prisoner was in the second class car, but defendant did not know that witness had gone into that car; that prisoner got up and started back, and must have stepped off the platform; that witness went back into the first class car, and found that prisoner was missing, and told the defendant, who was sitting in that car, with his head hung down, by the side of prisoner's wife; that defendant made no inquiries, and at Garner's station, they both took the back train to Raleigh; that before they reached Raleigh, going down, one Andrews told defendant that he knew prisoner, and that defendant had better hand-cuff him, but defendant refused to do so.

Captain Waitt, the conductor, testified that the prisoner paid for tickets for the whole party; that defendant and wife of prisoner were in the first class car; that he heard Evans tell defendant that the prisoner had got away; that defendant expressed no surprise, and took back train at Garner's station; that he saw Evans in the second class car, who told him that he had an eye on the prisoner, and as far as he knew, the defendant was sober, and that he had some conversation with him.

One Andrews testified, that he told the defendant that he had better handcuff the prisoner, but he did not do it; that the prisoner said he would pay the way of the guard, rather than be handcuffed.

There was other evidence to the same effect; also, that prisoner and defendant were drinking together before they reached Raleigh, and while at Raleigh; of conversations between Evans and defendant while at Raleigh on their return, and that defendant was drunk when he returned.

Defendant asked the Court to instruct the jury, that if they believed that the defendant let the prisoner go into the forward car to speak to his friend, and ordered Evans to go with him as a guard, and that Evans was a sufficient guard, then the defendant is not guilty. The Court refused to give this instruction, on the ground, that there was no evidence that the defendant had ordered Evans to follow the prisoner into the other car. Defendant excepted.

The defendant further asked the Court to instruct the jury, that it was not the duty of the defendant to put handcuffs on the prisoner. On this point the Court charged the jury, that under the statute, it was the duty of the defendant to use “all legal means to keep the prisoner, and carry him to Goldsboro; that the failure to place handcuffs on him was not ‘ per se. negligence; that the jury were to judge from the evidence, whether or not the failure to do so in this case contributed to the escape, and whether or not the defendant had used due diligence in guarding the prisoner without them. Defendant excepted.

The Court further charged, that ordinarily the burden of proof is on the State, to the end of the case, but in indictments for escape, and this was an indictment for negligent escape, when the escape was proved or admitted, the burden is shifted to the defendant, to prove there was no negligence on his part, and that he had used, in the language of the statute, “all legal means” for his...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • State v. Kerley
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 1 Mayo 1957
    ...nolo contendere, under the circumstances stated, would not of itself, standing alone, constitute prejudicial error as to Kerley. State v. Hunter, 94 N.C. 829; State v. Bryant, 236 N.C. 745, 73 S.E. 2d 791; 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 969; State v. De Bellis, 136 A. 603, 5 N. J. Misc. 375; Id.,......
  • State v. De Graffenreid
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 13 Octubre 1943
    ...417, 5 S.E.2d 130; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., v. Kirven, 130 N.C. 161, 41 S.E. 1; Aiken v. Lyon, 127 N.C. 171, 37 S.E. 199; State v. Hunter, 94 N.C. 829; State Voight, 90 N.C. 741. The defendant was within his rights in asking the witness if he did not testify to a different state of f......
  • State v. Graffenreid
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 13 Octubre 1943
    ...417, 5 S.E. 2d 130; Virginia-Carolina Chemical Co., v. Kirven, 130 N.C. 161, 41 S.E. 1; Aiken v. Lyon, 127 N.C. 171, 37 S.E. 199; State v. Hunter, 94 N.C. 829; State v. Voight, 90 N.C. 741. The defendant was within his rights in asking the witness if he did not testify to a different state ......
  • State v. Kittelle
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • 6 Abril 1892
    ...... the law and procedure where the statute has the word. 'knowingly' or the like. Knowledge there is an. element of the crime. The indictment must allege it, and the. evidence against the defendant must affirmatively establish. its existence." See, also, 1 Whart. Crim. Law, 297. In. Hunter v. State, 18 Tex.App. 444, the court said. that "knowledge of this fact [minority] by the defendant. at the time of the act is as essential to constitute this. offense as a fraudulent intent at the time of taking property. is to constitute the crime of larceny." It is hardly. necessary to say ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT