State v. Laxton
| Decision Date | 31 January 1878 |
| Citation | 78 N.C. 564 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMES LAXTON. |
INDICTMENT for Rape, removed from Caldwell and tried at Spring Term, 1877, of IREDELL Superior Court, before Schenck, J.
The prisoner was indicted in the following words: The jurors, &c., present that James Laxton, &c., with force and arms in and upon one Nancy L. Barlow in the peace of God and the State then and there being, violently and feloniously did make an assault, and her the said Nancy L. Barlow then and there violently and against her will, feloniously did ravish and carnally know, against, &c.
The case is sufficiently stated by THE CHIEF JUSTICE in delivering the opinion of this Court. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by the prisoner.
Attorney General for the State .
Messrs. G. N. Folk and R. F. Armfield for the prisoner .
The prisoner is charged with the crime of rape committed on the body of Nancy Barlow in Caldwell County, in the month of April, 1876. Upon his application the cause was removed to Iredell County, and there, upon the trial, a verdict of guilty was found by the jury and judgment of death pronounced from which he appeals to this Court. Several exceptions set out in the record were taken by the prisoner's counsel during the progress of the trial, and have been argued before us. We have given them a careful consideration, in view of the important results to the prisoner, depending upon the conclusions at which we may arrive.
It appears from the testimony of the prosecutrix, Nancy Barlow, an unmarried girl of seventeen years of age, that she was alone on Good Friday night, April 14th, 1876, at the house in which her mother, herself, and other female members of the family resided, the others having left to spend the night elsewhere; that she had just finished her supper and was putting the glass upon a shelf when she heard the prisoner's voice at the door, calling her, and upon her not answering, repeating the call; that she then went to the door and opened it, when the prisoner seized her by the arm and jerked her out of the house; that in her alarm she exclaimed “Lord have mercy, what are you going to do with me;” that the prisoner made no reply and proceeded to raise her clothes, when understanding his object she begged him to kill her with the axe rather than outrage her person, and screamed; that the prisoner put his hand over her mouth and suppressed her cries and forced her down upon a bench that stood near the door outside.
At this stage of the narrative the witness hesitated and wept. The Court several times directed her to proceed and remarked, “you need not use” or “I will not require you to use language that will shock your modesty.” The witness then said, “he had his will with me.” To this remark of the Judge no objection was made at the time by the prisoner's counsel. The witness then proceeded to say that she fainted and became insensible for a time, and when she recovered her consciousness she found herself on the bench, the prisoner in front of her; that she tried to walk to the door and was not able to do so and the prisoner pushed her in the door; that she remained in the house during the night, sleepless and undressed; and that on her mother's return in the afternoon of the next day, on her knees she communicated all the facts to her. The witness was cross-examined by the prisoner's counsel and the truth of her statements called in question by the manner in which the examination was conducted and the questions propounded to her.
Louisa Barlow, mother of the prosecutrix, introduced by the State, testified that upon her return home Saturday afternoon, she found her daughter in distress, and weeping; and learned from her the particulars of the outrage of the previous night which she then proceeded to repeat. When the witness came to speak of her daughter's entreaty that the prisoner would take her life rather than violate her person, the witness held down her head and seemed to be much affected and spoke in a low tone. Thereupon the prisoner's counsel asked the Court to require the witness to hold up her head and speak louder. The Judge said he would not compel her to hold up her head, but would require her to speak loud enough to be heard, adding, “some allowance must be made for the woman as she is overcome with emotion.” To this remark the prisoner's counsel excepted.
To contradict the testimony of the prosecutrix, the prisoner's counsel offered in evidence her examination taken before the Justice of the Peace before whom the prisoner after his arrest was brought. The Solicitor for the State then proposed to prove the account of the matter given by the prosecutrix to her mother after her return home, as concurring with and corroborating her testimony, and as affecting her credit. This on objection of the prisoner was admitted by the Court.
It is stated in the case that the mother and others of her family sat within the bar during the delivery of the argument for the State, and occasionally wept when reference was made to the enormity of the crime and its consequences to the prosecutrix, and that they withdrew when the prisoner's counsel were addressing the jury; but no complaint was made or objection offered during the trial, and so far as the Court observed, none of these persons were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Burnett v. Wilmington
-
State v. Paige
...comment by the trial judge regarding the evidence in this case. See State v. Mansell, 192 N.C. 20, 133 S.E. 190 (1926); State v. Laxton, 78 N.C. 564 (1878); State v. Grant, 19 N.C.App. 401, 199 S.E.2d 14, appeal dismissed, 284 N.C. 256, 200 S.E.2d 656 Defendants next contend that the trial ......
-
State v. Hart
... ... contemplation or meaning of Rev. 535, prohibiting the judge ... from giving an opinion whether a fact is fully or ... sufficiently proven, on the trial of the other ... defendant." ... See ... cases cited. See, also, State v. Laxton, 78 N.C ... 564; State v. Robertson, 121 N.C. 551, 28 S.E. 59; ... State v. Dewey, 139 N.C. 560, 51 S.E. 937; ... McDonald v. McArthur, 154 N.C. 10, 69 S.E. 684; ... State v. Rogers, 168 N.C. 116, 83 S.E. 161; Long ... v. Byrd, 169 N.C. 659, 86 S.E. 574; 16 C.J. § 2311 et ... ...
-
State v. Howard
... ... judge] from expressing an opinion to the jury are those ... respecting which the parties take issue or dispute, and on ... which, as having occurred or not occurred, the imputed ... liability of the defendants depends." In State v ... Laxton, 78 N.C. 564, Smith, C.J., says: "It is ... quite obvious from the words of the act that its special ... object was to prevent the intimation of such opinion in ... connection with, and constituting a part of, the instructions ... by which the jury were to be governed, and when its influence ... ...