State v. Matthews

• Decision Date: 31 January 1878
• Citation: 78 N.C. 523
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. SIDNEY MATTHEWS and FRANK HUMPHREYS.

78 N.C. 523

STATE

v.SIDNEY MATTHEWS and FRANK HUMPHREYS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January Term, 1878.

INDICTMENT for Murder, removed from Yadkin and tried at Fall Term, 1877, of FORSYTHE Superior Court, before Cox, J. The defendants were charged with the killing of one Costin D. Butner. The evidence was substantially as follows; Frank Matthews, a witness for the State, testified that the homicide was committed opposite the defendant Humphreys' house on the Yadkinville road; that he was at his home on the afternoon of the day of the killing, about 300 yards from the road, and upon his hearing loud cursing he went over and saw the deceased, defendants, and John Carter, Cannady Carter, and defendant Humphreys' wife. He stopped in about 75 yards of them and sat down. Humphreys was cursing Butner,--said he had sworn d--d lies against him at the Court House. Butner said he had not. Humphreys replied and said he was a d--d liar, and he could prove it by Matthews. Witness also stated that thereupon deceased advanced three steps and struck Matthews a back-handed lick, knocked him on his knees, kicked him and stamped at him; about the time Matthews rose, the deceased commenced falling backward, rose a second time, staggered, fell and died in a short time. Humphreys put his hand behind him and said he would shoot the d--d rascal; and his wife, screaming, threw her arms around him and held him, until the deceased fell. When Matthews was down, partly on his side, he was stamped about his legs and body. Matthews raised the deceased's head after he had fallen, rubbed it with camphor, and said “go for the doctor, quick.”

Enoch Matthews, for the State, testified among other things that when he got there he heard Humphreys say to the deceased, “d--n you, I'll shoot you, got it laid up for you, you swore d--d lies against me at the Court House, I can prove it, come up here Sidney Matthews.” Matthews thereupon stepped up, and the deceased struck him and he fell partly on his hands; deceased kicked him and stamped at him, but did not touch him (as witness thought). While down, Matthews said “fellows don't let him kill me,” and Humphreys said “stand back from the son of a bitch, I'm going to shoot him;” and motioned as if he was getting a pistol. (At this time his wife interfered as testified to by the former witness.) Matthews rose half up and as he rose, deceased fell at his feet and rose and fell again and died in a short time. Matthews then said “don't let him lie here and die this way, but try to do something for him,” and rubbed his head, &c., as testified to above. Matthews moved in front of the deceased, when told by Humphreys to come up and prove he lied, and stopped long enough to speak before deceased struck him; but witness heard no words pass, and saw no knife.

Henry Jarrett, for the State, testified to substantially the same state of facts. Upon the cross-examination of this witness, it was proposed to prove the declarations of Humphreys after the homicide, as explaining his acts; but upon objection by the Solicitor, they were excluded.

Frank Munday, for the State, testified, that some one, two or three months before the homicide, he was with the defendants and heard Humphreys say that deceased was a d--n rascal, to which Matthews assented. It was in evidence that Matthews was a peaceable and quiet man, small, one-eyed and a cripple; that Humphreys was a small man, and deceased was a large and powerful man, wore No. 10 boots and weighed about 215 pounds; and that defendants and deceased had lived together on the same plantation and were well acquainted. The counsel for the defendants thereupon proposed to show the character of the deceased as a violent and dangerous man; but upon objection the testimony was excluded.

A. C. Snipes, for the State, testified “that at a sale near the place of the homicide and an hour or two before its occurrence, Humphreys, upon his (witness) proposing to sell him some plows, introduced the name of the deceased who was not present, and spoke harshly of him; that they separated, and Humphreys returned in a short time with Matthews, and commenced cursing Butner again; he said he had cursed him to his face, and called on Matthews to confirm his statement; he also said that the next time he fought Butner, he would kill him, and that he had rather see him die than to see witness eat a biscuit;” that he had promised to go home with deceased that night, had left the sale before deceased, and expected deceased to overtake him; but upon his failing to do so, he returned and found him dead in the road; and that the wound was six inches below the groin. This witness also said upon cross-examination, that he had made the above statement before the Coroner's jury, and thereupon the defendants introduced members of said jury, whose testimony tended to contradict the evidence of said witness, in that, he stated upon the inquest, that what he knew was hearsay. The defendants then proposed to impeach his character by showing “that in Yadkin County where he lived, he had a general character for having been discharged from a certain mill for taking too much toll;” but upon objection, this was excluded.

Cannady Carter, for the State, testified that John Carter and the deceased were walking up the road quarrelling, and when they got opposite Humphreys' house, Matthews and Humphreys came out. Something was then said about $10, and the deceased and Humphreys began to quarrel, the deceased speaking in a loud and angry tone. During the altercation and in reply to his wife's request that he should leave and go to the house, Humphreys said, “I told you I am not afraid of him.” As Matthews was moving as if passing deceased, he knocked him down. Don't think that Humphreys made any effort to get at the deceased while Matthews was down. The deceased after knocking him down, stood still and was doing nothing and as Matthews rose he passed his hand out toward deceased, and when he got up they stood confronting each other with drawn knives when the deceased soon fell.

The defendants' counsel requested the Court to give the following special instructions;--

1. If the jury believe that Matthews had reasonable ground to apprehend that the assault of the deceased was made with felonious intent, that he was not bound to retreat, but he had a right to kill in self-defence.

2. That although the jury may believe that Matthews was willing to engage in the difficulty between the deceased and Humphreys, yet if they should believe that Matthews after being stricken down was unable to retreat, and had reasonable ground to apprehend that he was about to receive great bodily harm from the deceased, and stabbed the deceased in consequence thereof, that this of itself would not make him guilty of either murder or manslaughter; and the question of reasonable ground for such apprehension was solely a question for the jury to determine.

3. Ordinarily in trials for homicide, the killing by the prisoner being found or admitted, the law implies malice, and the burden lies upon the prisoner to show to the satisfaction of the jury, that the killing was done under circumstances reducing the offence to manslaughter, or excusable or justifiable homicide; but when circumstances which come out from the examination of the State's witnesses tend to establish such defence, then it is the duty of the jury to consider all the evidence, and if they are not satisfied of the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, they should acquit.

The Court read the above instructions to the jury, and stated that while they embodied correct principles of law, yet it would lay down the following rules for their guidance in this case, and after defining the grades of homicide, said; The fact of killing being first proved, all the circumstances of necessity or infirmity are to be satisfactorily proved by the accused, unless they arise out of the evidence against them, for the law presumes the fact to have been done in malice until the contrary appears. The jury are therefore to consider all the evidence and circumstances of the homicide and unless satisfied, &c. And in passing upon the facts, they should consider whether, if not guilty of murder, they or either of them may be guilty of manslaughter, or whether they acted in self-defence; that if it appeared from the circumstances of the case, the manner of the assault, the strength of his assailant, or the like, that Matthews had reasonable ground to apprehend that his life was in imminent danger, he was justified in killing his assailant, but there must be a necessity then for taking life from the fierceness of the assault, &c., before he could be excused on the ground of self-defence; that a bare fear that deceased intended to kill him, unaccompanied by some overt act, would not justify Matthews in killing him, for there must be an actual danger at the time, or reasonable ground to fear that there was; and of this, the jury and not the prisoner must be the judge; that if they engaged in a sudden combat, becoming heated thereby, and Matthews drew a deadly weapon, or used one in his hands, having no intent to use it when the fight commenced, and slew deceased, he is guilty of manslaughter; and so, if he had merely been kicked or struck by the deceased who was not endeavoring to pursue the combat further; or if it all occurred in rapid succession. But if deceased was pursuing his advantage so as to place Matthews in imminent peril of his life or great bodily harm, he might slay his adversary in self-defence.

As to Humphreys; If he was present and did or said anything calculated and intended to make known to Matthews that he would help if need be by taking part in the fight, or keeping others off, or if he agged him on, he would be guilty of aiding and abetting, and equally guilty with Matthews. You will apply the facts, &c., and give the defendants the benefit of all reasonable doubt...