State v. Itt
| Decision Date | 06 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 652.,652. |
| Citation | 34 S.E.2d 408,225 N.C. 364 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE . v. BR ITT. |
.
Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; Luther Hamilton, Special Judge.
Hilbreth Britt was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the felonious slaying of one Jetter T. Connor.
On July 9, 1944, the defendant and his wife, while in their automobile going from their home to the home of the defendant's mother, Mrs. Emeline Britt, picked up the deceased. The deceased had a fruit jar containing about a quart of liquor. Both the defendant and the deceased drank some of the liquor after arriving at the Britt home. Immediately thereafter they began to quarrel and to curse each other. The quarreling began while the defendant and the deceased were in the kitchen of the Britt home. Shortly thereafter, the defendant was standing in the front yard of the Britt home, talking to his mother, who was sitting on the porch. The deceased came from the kitchen and sat down on the porch. The quarrel was renewed, and the evidence is sharply conflicting as to what was said and done. The defendant offered testimony to the effect that the deceased approached him with a knife and that he wrung the knife from his hand, flipped him over his shoulder and threw him on the porch, and that the defendant never touched him thereafter. The State offered evidence tending to show that the defendant was a young man, 30 years of age, and weighed about 168 to 175 pounds. The deceased was a man 64 years of age, and weighed from 130 to 140 pounds. The defendant was a member of the United States Naval Forces and had been trained in the art of jujitsu. That after the deceased had been thrown on the porch, that the defendantjumped on him and choked him or doubled up the body of the deceased in such manner as to prevent him from breathing'. When the defendant got off the body of the deceased, at the request of his stepfather, Heman Britt, the face of the deceased was purple and he died without regaining consciousness.
Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter. Judgment: Imprisonment in the State's Prison for not less than four nor more than six years.
The defendant appeals, assigning error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
T. A. McNeill and F. D. Hackett, both of Lumberton, for defendant.
The appellant has abandoned his first seven and the tenth exceptions.
The Court, over the objection of the defendant, permitted Willie M'White, a State's witness, to testify to a conversation which he had with the wife of the defendant, in the absence of the defendant, as to the manner in which the deceased, Jetter T. Connor, came to his death. The wife of the defendant had already been on the witness stand and testified that the deceased attacked the defendant with a butcher knife. Her testimony was in conflict with her prior statements, according to the testimony of the witness M'White. And, in giving the State's contentions in the charge to the jury, his Honor said: "The State contends * * * that you should be satisfied from the testimony of another M'White, Willie, I believe they called him, who shortly thereafter had gone to talk with the witness, Columbia, and that she told him that her husband had killed him with his hand, and no mention was made of any knife, and from all the statements you should be satisfied, in the first place, beyond a reasonable doubt, there was no knife, and in the second place, you should be satisfied the knife had been taken from the possession of the decedent and he was wholly and completely unarmed or disarmed at the time the blow was administered that proved to be fatal to the decedent, and that at least you should return a verdict of at least guilty of manslaughter."
The exceptions to the admission of the above evidence and to the foregoing part of the charge, constitute the defendant's sixth assignment of error.
It was competent for the State to contradict the testimony of the defendant's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Litteral Ct Al
...164 N.C. 497, 80 S.E. 72; State v. Wilson, 176 N.C. 751, 97 S.E. 496; State v. Shepherd, 220 N.C. 377, 17 S.E.2d 469; State v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E.2d 408. One Reavis, witness for the State, noticed the two defendants about 5:00 or 5:30 of the afternoon preceding the assault, near th......
-
State v. Chance
...of these several rulings. It is true that a witness may be impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements. State v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E.2d 408. However, 'The limits of legitimate cross-examination are largely within the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling thereon will......
-
State v. Litteral
...164 N.C. 497, 80 S.E. 72; State v. Wilson, 176 N.C. 751, 97 S.E. 496; State v. Shepherd, 220 N.C. 377, 17 S.E.2d 469; State v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E.2d 408. Reavis, witness for the State, noticed the two defendants about 5:00 or 5:30 of the afternoon preceding the assault, near the ca......
- State v. Mack, No. 62