State v. McKay

• Decision Date: 24 March 1909
• Citation: 63 S.E. 1059,150 N.C. 813
• Parties: STATE v. McKAY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

63 S.E. 1059

150 N.C. 813

STATE v. McKAY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

March 24, 1909

Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; Biggs, Judge.

Junius McKay was convicted of murder, and appeals. Affirmed.

The words quoted, in a verdict of murder in the first degree "with mercy," did not vitiate the verdict or leave any doubt as to its character.

The requested instruction, the modification of which was the subject of accused's second exception, was that if the jury found that accused made threats, and that such threats were thoughtless, and in a boasting and bragging way, they must not give much weight thereto, and the instruction as given was that if the jury found that such threats were made in a boastful manner or in a bragging way they must not give much weight thereto. The court's instruction as to what constituted murder in the first degree, which was the subject of accused's fourth exception, was that, to constitute murder in the first degree, the killing must not only be done with malice aforethought, expressed or implied, but it must be done with willful premeditation and determination, and all of this must be shown beyond a reasonable doubt.

Robert E. Lee, for appellant.

Attorney General Bickett, for the State.

BROWN J.

A careful review of the record in this case discloses no just ground for awarding to the prisoner another trial.

Exception 1. It is contended by the prisoner that there is no evidence of murder in the first degree. The evidence adduced against the prisoner is circumstantial in its character, but that species of evidence is sufficient to convict where it points clearly to the guilt of the accused and is sufficiently strong to fully convince the jury. The evidence tends to prove that deceased, one Alex McKay, was killed by a blow on his head with some heavy instrument on the night of February 23d, and his body secreted in a hole some 300 yards from the place where he was killed, on a side street in the town of Rowland. The prisoner repeatedly threatened to kill deceased on the night aforesaid, charging that he was a liquor spy and followed him around armed with brickbats. The deceased was last seen alive going along a side street between 8 and 9 o'clock p. m., the prisoner following him, saying he would get him if he could come up with him. The next morning the hat of deceased, with a brickbat with hair and blood stains on it, were found on the side street, and some five weeks thereafter the body of deceased was found in the hole aforesaid. The evidence is voluminous, and it is noticeable that there is no exception taken by prisoner to any part of it.

In charging the jury upon the character of circumstantial evidence and as to its probative force, the learned judge gave the prisoner's prayer for instructions, and followed carefully well-established rulings of the court. We think there is ample evidence to connect the prisoner with the actual killing, as well as to show that it was the result of premeditated design, and that it was properly submitted to the jury, accompanied with clear, careful, and correct instructions.

Exception 2. The court substantially gave the prisoner's instruction, and we are unable to see any difference between the prayer and the instruction given.

Exception 3. The defendant requested the court to charge, "There being no evidence in this case of any bad feeling existing between the prisoner and the deceased, the jury cannot...