State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 15 December 1948
• Docket Number: 649
• Citation: 50 S.E.2d 723,229 N.C. 596
• Parties: STATE v. JONES.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

50 S.E.2d 723

229 N.C. 596

STATE v. JONES.

No. 649

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 15, 1948

Criminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the murder of his wife, Leora Jones.

The record discloses that in the late afternoon of 7 January 1948, Leora Jones was in the kitchen of her home, preparing the evening meal, when her husband, the defendant, approached from behind and struck her with a hatchet. A struggle ensued between the two which was carried on throughout the house and finally ended in a small hall near the bath room, where the body of the deceased was found with knife wounds in her chest which produced her death.

The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and sought to show that he was insane or irresponsible at the time, superinduced by excessive use of narcotics or dope--morphine.

Verdict Guilty of murder in the first degree.

Judgment Death by asphyxiation.

The defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

James V. Morgan, of High Point, for defendant.

STACY Chief Justice.

Only two questions are presented by the appeal.

1. The defendant offered his brother as a witness who told of the defendant's use of dope over a long period of time and the effect it had upon him, especially in respect of his nervous system. Near the close of his examination in chief, he was asked this question: 'When he was under the influence of dope, do you have an opinion as to whether he knew exactly what he was doing? ' Objection; sustained; exception.

The ruling must be sustained on appeal for two reasons: First, the question did not go to the defendant's sanity; it stopped short of the requisite inquiry; and, secondly, the record fails to show what the witness would have answered. State v. Webb, 228 N.C. 304, 45 S.E.2d 345; State v. Utley, 223 N.C. 39, 25 S.E.2d 195; State v. Thomas, 220 N.C. 34, 16 S.E.2d 399.

2. The defendant sought to qualify an unlicensed pharmacist as an expert to testify in respect of the effects of nembutal and morphine on individuals. The court refused to qualify the witness as an expert for want of sufficient showing in respect of his qualifications. The witness stated that he knew what effect these drugs would have upon a person, and presumably he would have so testified, albeit the record fails to show what his testimony would have...