State v. Jones

• Citation: 59 S.E. 353,145 N.C. 466
• Parties: STATE. v. JONES.
• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

59 S.E. 353

145 N.C. 466

STATE.

v.JONES.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 20, 1907.

1. Homicide — Deliberation — Premeditation—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In a homicide case, evidence held to justify a finding that the killing was premeditated and deliberate.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Homicide, § 480.]

2. Same—Murder in First Degree.

Where accused weighed the purpose of killing another long enough to form a fixed design to kill, and at a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how remote, the design was executed, accused was guilty of murder in the first degree.

\Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 20, Homicide, §§ 19, 36-38.]

3. Same—Murder in Second Degree.

Where accused intentionally shot decedent with a pistol and killed him, and the state failed to show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killing was done with deliberation and premeditation, accused was guilty of murder in the second degree.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. voi. 26, Homicide, §§ 19, 39, 40.]

4. Criminal Law — Confessions — Admissibility.

The fact that accused was in the custody of an officer when a confession was made does not of itself render it incompetent.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1163-1174, 1202-1206.)

5. Same.

Where accused, while in the custody of an officer, made a confession, and there was no promise held out to him nor any influence exerted which would be calculated to induce a confession, it was admissible.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 14, Criminal Law, §§ 1163-1174, 1202-1206.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Moore, Judge.

Frazier Jones was convicted of murder In the first degree, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was indicted for and convicted of killing his wife, Lula Jones. The exceptions were mainly directed to the evidence and the charge of the court upon the question whether the killing was done with deliberation and premeditation, so as to constitute murder in the first degree and to the instruction as to murder in the second degree. There was no evidence of manslaugh ter or excusable homicide. The testimony relating to the killing was as follows:

"Bettie Holt testified: That she and Lula Jones, on Thanksgiving Day, 1906, were in the kitchen getting dinner, and the prisoner was outdoors somewhere. He came in at 12 o'clock, and called for something to eat, and Lula, his wife (the deceased), gave him a piece of meat. The prisoner said he didn't want that piece, but wanted a piece with a bone in it, and threw it at his wife. His wife returned the compliment, and in the exchange of meat some grease found its way into the prisoner's face, and 'he got angry because she put some grease on his face.' The prisoner's wife then went out of the door, into the adjoining room, and prisoner followed right behind her. Witness heard them talking pretty loud, and in a short time heard the report of a gun. Ethel Gibson, another witness, stepped to the door, and, looking in, said, 'Uncle Frazier has killed Aunt Lou.' Witness then ran, and, while running, heard a gun fire, and when she had run as far as the hogpen heard the gun fire again. Witness also testified that she saw deceased lying in front of the fireplace, and that one bullet went in one ear and out the other. Another entered the back of the head and came out of her forehead. The third went through deceased's hand. Witness also testified that the prisoner was the only person in the room with the deceased."

"Ethel Gibson testified: That when she heard the first shot she stepped up to the door, and, looking in, saw deceased sitting by the fire in a chair, and the prisoner was standing on her left side. She then saw the prisoner hold the pistol up to the left ear of deceased. She then hollered and ran. Witness heard three shots in all, and then the prisoner ran out of the house, towards the railroad, with a pistol in his hand."

"Caleb Summers testified: That, when the first shot was fired, he was standing about 25 or 30 feet from the house, and when he heard the shot he looked towards the house, and saw the prisoner shoot right down at his wife, who was lying on the floor. Then saw him come out of the house, and kneel down by the deceased. He then got up and came out with the revolver in his hand."

"Gus May, a policeman, testified: That he was near the house when the shooting occurred, and saw the prisoner come out of the house with the pistol in his hand; that he ran after the prisoner and called upon him to halt, and arrested him and asked him why he shot his wife, and the prisoner said, 'Maybe I will tell that later, but her business and my business is our business, and nobody else's'; and, further: 'I shot my wife, and if she is dead I killed her. I am satisfied that she is dead, but I want to see her stretched out. I have killed her and can pay the penalty. I will be hanged, and I don't expect anything else.' He also told the witness that he had shot her three times, and for the witness to keep the crowd from shooting him, as he wanted to be hanged, and not butchered."

"Dr. Jordan testified as to the death of the deceased, the wounds, the range of the Bullets, and also that the deceased's clothing was burned from powder."

The prisoner introduced no evidence.

The court, after explaining the nature of the charge to the jury, the different degrees of homicide and the bearing of the evidence, instructed the jury as to premeditation and deliberation, as follows: "If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoner weighed the purpose of killing long enough to form a fixed design to kill, and at a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how remote, put it into execution and killed the deceased in pursuance of such fixed design to kill, then you should convict the prisoner of murder in the first degree. When the purpose or design to kill is formed with deliberation and premeditation, it is not necessary that such purpose or design be formed any particular length of time before the killing. The law does not lay down any rule as to the time which must elapse between the moment when a prisoner premeditates and comes to a determination in his own mind to kill another person and the moment when he does the killing, as a test. It is not a question of time. It is merely a question of whether the accused formed in his own mind the determination of killing the deceased, and then at some subsequent time, either immediate or remote, carried his previously formed determination into effect by killing the deceased. If there be an intent to kill and a simultaneous killing, then there is no premeditation. If the prisoner weighed the purpose of killing long enough to form a fixed design to kill, and at a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how remote, put it into execution and killed the deceased, then he...