State v. Limrick
| Decision Date | 13 May 1908 |
| Citation | 61 S.E. 568,146 N.C. 649 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. LIMRICK. |
Whether the prisoner was guilty or innocent of the crime of manslaughter, held, under the evidence, to be a question for the jury.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, § 574.]
If the prisoner intentionally pointed the gun at the deceased, and it was then discharged, causing the death, or if the prisoner at the time was guilty of culpable negligence in the way he handled and dealt with the gun, and by reason of such negligence the gun was discharged, he would be guilty of manslaughter.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 26, Homicide, §§ 82, 101.]
Appeal from Superior Court, Rutherford County; Peebles, Judge.
One Limrick was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Reversed.
Indictment against defendant for murder of one D. Williams. Before the jury were selected the solicitor for the state announced that he would not ask for a conviction of murder in the first degree, but would insist on a conviction of murder in the second degree or manslaughter. After hearing the testimony, the court, among other things, charged the jury that if they believed the evidence they should find the defendant guilty of manslaughter; at least that, taking all the evidence in its most favorable light to the defendant, he would be guilty of manslaughter. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter, and from judgment on the verdict the defendant appealed.
McBrayer, McBrayer & McRovie, for appellant.
Asst. Atty. Gen. Clement, for the State.
There was error in the charge of the court above stated, and the question of the prisoner's guilt or innocence of the crime of manslaughter should have been submitted to the jury with appropriate instructions. There was evidence tending to show that the prisoner and the deceased, two young boys, were friends—had the warmest friendship for each other, as stated by one of the witnesses—and that they were both in good humor at the time. Speaking directly to the occurrence, Aden Lynch, a witness for the state, testified as follows: On cross-examination this witness said: A doctor testified that deceased died from the effect of the gunshot wound. Several witnesses, without objection, testified that deceased, in speaking of the shooting, said it was an accident. Lee Nanney, witness for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Phillips, 745
...N.C. 229, 108 S.E.2d 485; State v. Kluckhohn, 243 N.C. 306, 90 S.E.2d 768; State v. Trollinger, 162 N.C. 618, 77 S.E. 957; State v. Limerick, 146 N.C. 649, 61 S.E. 568. Since there must be a new trial, we deem any discussion of the other assignments of error New trial. ...
-
State v. Hovis
...homicide or manslaughter. G.S. § 14-34; State v. Vines, 93 N.C. 493; State v. Trollinger, 162 N.C. 618, 77 S.E. 957; State v. Limerick, 146 N.C. 649, 61 S.E. 568. Involuntary manslaughter has been defined to be, 'Where death results unintentionally, so far as the defendant is concerned, fro......
-
State v. Kluckhohn, 442
...as to whether or not the death of the deceased was proximately caused by the culpable negligence of the defendant. State v. Limerick, 146 N.C. 649, 61 S.E. 568; State v. Turnage, 138 N.C. 566, 49 S.E. 913; State v. Trollinger, 162 N.C. 618, 77 S.E. 957; State v. Stansell, 203 N.C. 69, 164 S......
- State v. Cope