State v. Manning

• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Citation: State v. Manning, 221 N.C. 70, 18 S.E.2d 821 (N.C. 1942)
• Decision Date: 04 March 1942
• Docket Number: 146.
• Parties: STATE v. MANNING.

18 S.E.2d 821

221 N.C. 70

STATE v. MANNING.

No. 146.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 4, 1942

Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with feloniously and with malice aforethought killing Paul Best.

The State's evidence tends to show that on the morning of July 8, 1941, Paul Best, an elderly man, employed as a clerk in the store of H. P. Sewell, in the town of Windsor, was struck on the back of the head at the base of the skull by a hammer or other blunt instrument, and that as a result of the injury Best died some seven or eight hours later. The defendant was seen coming out of the store, where Best was employed, a short time before Best was found on the floor of the store in an unconscious condition. There was evidence that the cash register had been robbed, and the evidence tends to show that the murder was committed in the perpetration of this felony.

Defendant made numerous confessions, admitting that he killed the deceased, Paul Best, and that he robbed the cash register but at the time of the trial he repudiated the confessions and contended they were involuntary.

Verdict Guilty of the felony and murder in the first degree whereof the defendant stands charged in the bill of indictment.

Judgment Death by asphyxiation. Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and G. B. Patton Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

Gillam & Spruill, of Windsor, for defendant.

DENNY Justice.

The defendant's first exception is to the ruling of His Honor that the confessions of the defendant were voluntary. The Court, in the absence of the jury, heard the testimony of the witnesses and the defendant on the question as to whether or not the various confessions of the defendant were voluntary. The Court then found as a fact and held that the confessions of the defendant were free and voluntary.

In the case of State v. Fain, 216 N.C. 157, 4 S.E.2d 319, 320, Stacy, C. J., said: "It is the established procedure with us that the competency of a confession is a preliminary question for the trial court, State v. Andrew, 61 N.C. 205, to be determined in the manner pointed out in State v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603, and that the court's ruling thereon will not be disturbed, if supported by any competent evidence. State v. Moore, 210 N.C. 686, 188 S.E. 421."

In State v. Andrew, supra, Pearson, C. J., said: "'It is the duty of the Judge to decide the facts upon which depends the admissibility of testimony; he can not put upon others the decision of a matter, whether of law or of fact, which he himself is bound to make.' State v. Dick, 60 N.C. 440 [86 Am.Dec. 439]. *** What facts amount to such threats or promises as make confessions not voluntary and admissible in evidence is a question of law, and the decision of the Judge in the court below can be reviewed by this court; so, what evidence the Judge should allow to be offered to him to establish these facts is a question of law. So, whether there be any evidence tending to show that confessions were not made voluntarily, is a question of law. But whether the evidence, if true, proves these facts, and whether the witnesses giving testimony to the court touching the facts are entitled to credit or not, and in case of a conflict of testimony which witness should be believed by the court, are questions of fact to be decided by the Judge; and his decision can not be reviewed in this court, which is confined to questions of law." State v. Whitener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603.

No error has been made to appear in the admission of the confessions of the defendant in evidence.

The second and seventh exceptions are to the refusal of the Court to charge the jury on the lesser degrees of the crime charged. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that where there is no evidence to sustain a verdict of guilty of a lesser offense than that charged in the bill of indictment, it is not incumbent upon the Court to submit to the jury the question of defendant's guilt of lesser degrees of the crime charged. This rule applies to indictments for murder when all the evidence tends to show, as here, that such murder was committed in the perpetration of a felony.

In State v. Wagstaff, 219 N.C....