State v. Madden

• Decision Date: 22 September 1937
• Docket Number: 1.
• Citation: 192 S.E. 859,212 N.C. 56
• Parties: STATE v. MADDEN.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

192 S.E. 859

212 N.C. 56

STATE v. MADDEN.

No. 1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

September 22, 1937

Appeal from Superior Court, Surry County; Frank S. Hill, Special Judge.

Thomas Madden was convicted of first-degree burglary, and he appeals.

Cause remanded for new trial.

On the night of November 1, 1936, the prosecutrix, Sarah Wood, after giving medicine to her husband, who was sick and in bed retired between 9 and 10 o'clock. About 11:45 she heard a noise at her window and, upon looking, discovered a man crawling away from the window toward the rear of the house. After dressing she took the lamp and went to the back porch and there had a conversation with a man she identified as the defendant. This man went to the back screen door and began shaking it as if trying to enter. The prosecutrix went back in the house and locked the back door, leaving the key in the lock. She informed her husband about the presence of the man and after he had dressed both of them went to the front door called for assistance, or to get a neighbor to telephone the officers. Prosecutrix opened the front door and stepped out on the porch a sufficient distance to look each way and saw no one. She still heard the noise at the back screen door which terminated in a noise which sounded like the slamming of a screen door. While the prosecutrix and her husband were standing at the front door looking out, the prosecutrix received a lick in the face, which rendered her unconscious. The husband at the same time was stricken and became unconscious.

Some time thereafter the prosecutrix sufficiently recovered to attract the attention of neighbors. When the neighbors arrived, they discovered a small quantity of blood in the front room, large quantities in the kitchen, and considerable blood on the back porch, which had the appearance of having been wallowed in. Both the prosecutrix and her husband were seriously injured. At that time the back door was standing open and the back screen door was unlatched. Just inside of the back screen door two boards, each three inches wide, had been pushed down toward the ground, leaving an opening about six inches wide. About two or three weeks later a hole about the size of a small nail was discovered in the screen door near the latch. At the time prosecutrix retired all of the windows of the house were closed, the back screen door was latched, and the back door was locked. None of the windows were disturbed and no physical injury was done to the building except as indicated. Detailed evidence as to the offense committed and that tending to show the identity of the defendant is omitted.

There was a verdict of guilty and a judgment of death, from which the prisoner appealed.

Each essential element of crime of burglary in first degree must be established beyond reasonable doubt, and failure on part of state to so establish any essential element of the crime requires verdict of acquittal.

A. E. Tilley and Wilson Barber, both of Mt. Airy, for appellant.

A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BARNHILL Justice.

The court below, in its charge to the jury, properly defined the crime of "burglary in the first degree" as being constituted of the following essential elements: (1) An unlawful and intentional breaking; and (2) an unlawful and intentional entry; (3) into a dwelling house presently occupied; (4) in the nighttime; (5) with intent to commit the felony charged in the bill. Each of these essential elements, constituting the crime of burglary in the first degree, were clearly defined with commendable accuracy.

There was sufficient evidence tending to show the identity of the defendant, and that the dwelling house of the prosecutrix and her husband, then occupied by them, was entered during the nighttime, and that a felonious assault was actually committed. The only feature of the testimony we need to discuss is the sufficiency of the evidence to show an unlawful and intentional breaking and entry. To establish this essential element of the crime charged, the State relied upon circumstantial evidence, which is a well-recognized and accepted instrumentality of truth in the proof of the commission of a crime, or in establishing the existence of any essential element thereof. Each essential element must be established beyond a reasonable doubt, and failure upon the part of the State to so establish any essential element of the crime requires a verdict of acquittal.

Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to justify conviction if the circumstances are consistent with either the hypothesis of innocence, or the hypothesis of guilt. To justify inference of guilt, the circumstantial evidence must exclude to a moral certainty every other reasonable hypothesis.

In order to sustain a conviction on circumstantial evidence, all the circumstances proved must be consistent with each other consistent with the hypothesis that accused is guilty, and at the same time inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt. In...