State v. Keath
| Citation | 83 N.C. 626 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1880 |
| Parties | STATE v. DANIEL KEATH. |
INDICTMENT for Murder removed from Cleaveland and tried at Spring Term, 1880, of RUTHERFORD Superior Court, before McKoy, J.
Verdict of guilty, judgment, appeal by the prisoner.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs. Merrimon & Fuller, for prisoner .
On the 28th day of January, 1880, one Alice Ellis, a child, was found dead in an old field in the county of Cleaveland, in the vicinity of the residence of the prisoner. Her head was crushed as with a stone, and her body bore the marks of violent sexual connection. Suspicion fastened upon the prisoner. He was arrested, tried and convicted by a jury at spring term, 1880, of Rutherford superior court.
After the jury returned their verdict, there was a rule for a new trial. The rule was discharged and sentence pronounced against the prisoner, from which he appealed to this court.
There was no exception to the charge of His Honor, but the application of the rule was based upon exceptions which are as follows:
1. That the jury found against the weight of evidence.
2. Because the prisoner offered to prove by one J. Hicks, a witness for the defence, a conversation between the said Hicks and one Bridges on the 28th of January, 1880, at “Burnt Chimney,” about eighteen miles from the place of the homicide, with regard to the person described in the testimony of Hicks given on the trial. The state objected and the conversation was ruled out. To which the prisoner excepted.
3. Because, in the notes of the evidence taken by the court, the testimony of Thornton Ellis was read over to the jury, which showed that the tracks were twisting, and the prisoner's counsel contended that the evidence of Thornton Ellis was that the boots were twisting. The court told the jury “that in the notes of the testimony the court might have been mistaken, and would therefore ask the jury to take the notes only for the purpose of carrying them back to what the witness did say, as it was from the mouth of the witness they would get testimony upon which they were to found their verdict, using the notes of the court only for the purpose of refreshing their memories as to what the witness did say.”
4. The prisoner's counsel asked the court to charge the jury, that if the crime with which the prisoner is charged was actually committed by him, while under the influence of whisky or by sudden provocation, as some of the evidence tends to show, and while other evidence tends to show that the prisoner and the deceased were perfectly friendly, and were but a short time before such occurrence on good terms, then it was manslaughter, and not murder. This instruction the court declined to give, as the evidence did not justify the charge, and the prisoner excepted. His Honor overruled all the exceptions and discharged the rule.
The only question presented for our consideration is, was there error in the ruling of His Honor upon the exceptions or in his ruling in refusing to give the instructions prayed for. We hold there was none. The weight of evidence is always a question for the jury. So well settled is this principle that we deem it unnecessary to cite any authority in support of the ruling of the judge below.
The second exception, to the rejection by the court of a conversation between the witness and one Bridges, cannot be sustained in this court, because the evidence proposed and rejected is not set out. and the court is unable to see whether...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gaston
...S.E. 456; State v. Varner, 115 N.C. 744, 20 S.E. 518; State v. Braddy, 104 N.C. 737, 10 S.E. 261; State v. Glisson, 93 N.C. 506; State v. Keath, 83 N.C. 626; State v. Hinson, 82 N.C. 597; State v. Secrest, supra; State v. Jones, 69 N.C. 16. Hence it cannot be raised by a motion for a new tr......
-
State v. Hammonds
...as an excuse. State v. Potts, 100 N.C. 457, 6 S.E. 657. 'Voluntary drunkenness is never an excuse for the commission of a crime.' State v. Keath, 83 N.C. 626. If charged with murder has premeditated and deliberately formed the intention to kill, and did kill, the deceased, when drunk, the o......
-
State v. Harris
... ... Gambill, 106 N.C. 359, 11 ... S.E. 273; State v. Braddy, 104 N.C. 737, 10 S.E ... 261; Battle v. Mayo, 102 N.C. 413, 438, 9 S.E. 384; ... Sugg v. Watson, 101 N.C. 188, 7 S.E. 709; ... Lawrence v. Hester, ... [26 S.E. 775.] ... 93 N.C. 79; State v. Glisson, Id. 506; State v ... Keath, 83 N.C. 626; State v. Jones, 69 N.C. 16 ... The matter seems adjudicated, and is decisive of this case ... It is true that exceptions for error in the charge may be ... taken, specifically, if made within 10 days after the ... adjournment of the court. Lowe v. Elliott, 107 N.C ... 718, 12 ... ...
-
State v. Trott
...voluntary drunkenness will not excuse a crime committed by a man, otherwise sane, whilst acting under its influence." See, also, ' State v. Keath, 83 N. C. 626; State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457, 6 S. E. 657; State v. Wilson, 104 N. C. 868, 10 S. E. 315; State v. McDaniel, 115 N. C. 807, 20 S. ......