State v. Jeffries
| Decision Date | 05 November 1895 |
| Citation | 117 N.C. 727,23 S.E. 163 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JEFFRIES. |
Criminal Law—Disposing op Mortgaged Chattels—Intent—Evidence.
On trial for unlawfully disposing of mortgaged goods with intent to defeat the rights of the mortgagee, evidence that, five months after the offense was committed, defendant attempted to dispose of other property covered by the mortgage, is inadmissible on the question of intent.
Appeal from superior court, Guilford county; Starbuck, Judge.
S. B. Jeffries was convicted of unlawfully disposing of mortgaged property, and appeals. Reversed.
James T. Morehead, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant owed J. A. Smith 545 by note, and in July, 1894, executed to him a chattel mortgage upon a bicycle, a horse, and a wagon. On the 1st of October of the same year, he pledged the bicycle to one Morris, in Greensboro, to secure the repayment of $8 which he had borrowed from him at that time. In March. 1895 (five months after he had pledged the bicycle), the defendant offered to sell the wagon to one Hodgin. The defendant was indicted under section 1089 of the Code for disposing of the bicycle with intent to hinder, delay, and defeat the rights of the mortgagee, Smith; and on the trial the state was allowed, after objection made and overruled, to introduce testimony concerning the defendant's offer to sell the wagon, for the purpose of proving his unlawful and corrupt intent in pledging the bicycle. The court committed error in permitting the introduction of this testimony for that purpose. There are some few exceptions to the almost universal rule of law that evidence of a distinct substantive offense cannot be admitted in support of another offense. One of these exceptions is, when the quo animo enters into and forms a necessary part of the imputed offense, and proof of a corrupt and unlawful intention is Indispensable to establish the guilt of the person charged, testimony of another offense committed by that person, provided it tendsto establish such intent, is admissible. When these exceptions are brought into practical operation in criminal trials, however intelligently they may be administered, they are liable to be attended with great injustice to the defendant. It is very difficult for juries to understand clearly the precise purpose for which such testimony is allowed, and more difficult still for them not to be influenced in making up their verdict by the general impression of the testimony, rather than by the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. McClain
...on North Carolina Evidence, § 91. This is true even though the other offense is of the same nature as the crime charged. State v. Jeffries, 117 N.C. 727, 23 S.E. 163; 20 Am.Jur., Evidence, § 309; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § The general rule rests on these cogent reasons: (1) 'Logically, the ......
-
State v. Summerlin, 219
...131 N.C. 798, 42 S.E. 894; State v. Graham, 121 N.C. 623, 28 S.E. 409; State v. Frazier, 118 N.C. 1257, 24 S.E. 520; State v. Jeffries, 117 N.C. 727, 23 S.E. 163; State v. Shuford, 69 N.C. 486. But to this, there is the exception, as well established as the rule itself, that proof of the co......
-
State v. Smoak
... ... another and independent crime, the two being wholly ... disconnected and in no way related to each other. State ... v. McCall, 131 N.C. 798, 42 S.E. 894; State v ... Graham, 121 N.C. 623, 28 S.E. 409; State v ... Frazier, 118 N.C. 1257, 24 S.E. 520; State v ... Jeffries, 117 N.C. 727, 23 S.E. 163; State v ... Shuford, 69 N.C. 486. But to this there is the ... exception, as well established as the rule itself, that proof ... of the commission of other like offenses is competent to show ... the quo animo, intent, design, guilty knowledge, or scienter, ... ...
-
State v. Godwin
...131 N.C. 798, 42 S.E. 894; State v. Graham, 121 N.C. 623, 28 S.E. 409; State v. Frazier, 118 N.C. 1257, 24 S.E. 520; State v. Jeffries, 117 N.C. 727, 23 S.E. 163; State v. Shuford, 69 N.C. 486. But to this there the exception, as well established as the rule itself, that proof of the commis......