State v. Jones
| Decision Date | 07 May 1947 |
| Docket Number | 578. |
| Parties | STATE v. JONES et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecution under bill of indictment charging (1) a felonious assault (G.S. § 14-32) upon R.S Britt, and (2) an attempt to commit highway robbery with firearms.
The testimony, considered in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show the following facts. Defendant Roscoe Jones was employed by R.S. Britt to drive a truck to convey strawberries to market places. On 25 April 1946 he did not report for work and some one else was employed in his stead. That night Britt returned to Whiteville about 8 p.m. His driver got off the truck and Britt proceeded towards his home about seven miles in the country. A car followed him so closely its lights interfered with his driving. Some distance out of town the driver of the car blew his horn several times and Britt pulled to one side of the road. A young man came to the window of his truck and demanded his pocketbook. He denied having one. Thereupon he was struck on the head with a blackjack or pistol, and the first man and a companion "lit all over" him, felt his clothing, "and went all around under the seat." A car approached and the two men disappeared. Another car came along and carried Britt to the hospital.
When first assaulted, Britt tried to drive off, but his truck crossed the road ditch and hit a tree. At that time he managed to throw his pocketbook in the woods and so his assailants got nothing from him.
Britt recognized Roscoe Jones as one of his assailants but did not identify his companion. However, there was evidence defendants admitted to officers they were the ones who stopped him, claiming they did so to get Roscoe's coat off the truck, and then some argument developed between Britt and Cecil Jones relative to money Britt owed Roscoe, in the course of which Cecil struck Britt with his fist. There was other evidence relative to the conduct of the defendants that afternoon and night which tends to identify them as the parties who stopped Britt on the public highway.
The Court, on the first count, submitted the cause to the jury on the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon and, on the second count, on the charge of an attempt to commit highway robbery.
By their verdict on the first count, the jury found each defendant guilty of a simple assault, and on the second count, guilty of an attempt to commit highway robbery.
The court pronounced judgment on the verdict on each count, the sentences to run consecutively, and defendant Clyde Roscoe Jones appealed.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T.W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Frink & Herring, of Southport, for defendant-appellant.
It may be conceded that the identification of defendants by the prosecuting witness was by no means convincing. Even so there was other evidence tending to point to them as the parties who followed Britt and stopped him on the highway. Furthermore, there was uncontroverted evidence that they so admitted. The real controversy involved the conflicting versions of what happened after defendants stopped him. If the statements made by defendants are to be accepted, then Cecil Jones committed a simple assault and Roscoe Jones committed no offense. If Britt's version of the occurrence is true, then the defendants, acting in concert assaulted Britt and attempted to rob him. They were defeated in this purpose only by the fact Britt had no money on his person when they searched him.
The conflicting contentions in respect thereto were submitted to the jury. It was their prerogative to sift the evidence and find the facts. This they have done. The testimony is amply sufficient to sustain their verdict.
The appellant excepts to that part of the charge in which the court outlined the verdicts the jury might return under the second count as submitted to them. Under this exception he in his brief, insists that the court failed to comply with the provisions of G.S. § 1-180 in that it did not "state in a plain and correct manner the evidence given in the case and declare and explain the law arising thereon."
But an exception to a specific portion of the charge is not sufficient to present this question unless such portion is in itself fatally defective. There must be an assignment of error which points out specifically wherein the court failed to charge the law arising on the evidence. State v. Dilliard, 223 N.C. 446, 27 S.E.2d 85; Baird v. Baird, 223 N.C. 730, 28 S.E.2d 225; State v. Harrill, 224 N.C. 477, 31 S.E.2d 353; State v. Britt, 225 N.C. 364, 34 S.E.2d 408; Brown v. Loftis, 226 N.C. 762, 40 S.E.2d 421. The court will not make a voyage of discovery to ascertain error. Cecil v. Snow Lumber Company, 197 N.C. 81, 147 S.E. 735.
In this and one other excerpt to which exception is entered, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial