State v. Lee

• Decision Date: 23 December 1897
• Citation: 28 S.E. 552,121 N.C. 544
• Parties: STATE v. LEE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

28 S.E. 552

121 N.C. 544

STATE v. LEE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 23, 1897

Appeal from criminal court, Edgecombe county; Meaves, Judge.

Willis Lee was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

In a prosecution of a husband for murder, where the wife was a witness, an instruction that although the law does not say that a wife cannot swear to the truth, it does, by reason of the close relation between husband and wife, cast suspicion upon her testimony, and cautions the jury to scan it closely but, if rejected, the burden is still on the state to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, is objectionable, as liable to mislead the jury into the belief that the evidence of the wife is to be to some extent discredited, although they may think she has told the truth.

Gilliam & Gilliam and R. O. Burton, for appellant.

The Attorney General, for the State.

FAIRCLOTH C.J.

The prisoner stands indicted for murder. Several exceptions were made, and we find one that requires us to order a new trial and, as the others may not be made again, we do not pass upon them at present. The prisoner's wife was examined by him. In regard to her testimony the court charged the jury "They [the prisoner and wife] stand in the close relation of husband and wife, and the law is that, standing in close relation, there is a cloud of suspicion cast upon her testimony. At the same time the law does not say that a wife cannot swear to the truth. The law does not instruct you not to believe her, but it does caution you to scan her testimony very closely. The wife is a competent witness in behalf of her husband, but, in view of the close relation between them and the cloud of suspicion cast upon her testimony, the law says the jury should scrutinize her evidence with great severity. If the jury reject the evidence of the wife, it would still devolve upon the state to furnish you with evidence to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the prisoner." To this charge the prisoner excepted. Besides the strong and significant language of his honor, which we cannot approve, he failed to instruct the jury, as this court has several times pointed out and required to be done, that if they believe the discredited witness has sworn the truth, he is entitled to as full credit as any other witness. We will again state the rule: The law regards with suspicion the testimony of near relations interested parties,...