State v. Mckeithan, 273.
| Citation | 166 S.E. 336, 203 N.C. 494 |
| Case Date | November 09, 1932 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
166 S.E. 336
203 N.C. 494
STATE.
v.
McKEITHAN.
No. 273.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Nov. 9, 1932.
[166 S.E. 336]
Appeal from Superior Court, Hoke County; Barnhill, Judge.
M. L. McKeithan was convicted under an indictment charging that he feloniously procured another to burn a dwelling house, and he appeals.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging, in the first count, that the defendant did on March 5, 1932, feloniously aid, counsel, and procure one Curtis Smith feloniously to burn a dwelling house, the property of said defendant and one Campbell as tenants in common, contrary to the provisions of C. S. § 4175; and, in the second count, that the defendant, being tenant in common with one Campbell of a dwelling house, then insured against loss, did on March 5, 1932, feloniously procure one Curtis Smith to burn said dwelling house in violation of C. S. § 4245, as amended by Pub. Laws 1927, c. 11, § 2.
The evidence tends to show that the defendant, M. L. McKeithan, and L. J. Campbell owned a farm near Raeford in Hoke county as tenants in common, known as the Watkins place as Jasper Watkins, a colored man, was tenant thereon. This farm had a house on it worth about $25, which was insured for $1,-000. Curtis Smith, a young white man, testified that the defendant agreed to pay him $50 if he would burn the Jasper Watkins house. The evidence is plenary that, in consequence of this understanding and procurement, the defendant helping to arrange the details, Curtis Smith did, on the night of March 5, 1932, burn the house in question. Smith had taken several drinks before the burning, and immediately thereafter, due to this circumstance perhaps, he talked rather freely about the matter. He later confessed to the sheriff.
The statements of Smith, especially those made after the burning, were the subject of a number of objections and exceptions. They were admitted in corroboration of Smith's testimony.
it was also in evidence that the defendant and L. J. Campbell owned as tenants in common, in addition to the Watkins place, two other farms near Raeford, with a house on each, not in the same locality, but "on the other side of town." The defendant thereupon requested the court to direct a verdict of not guilty, as the property was not described in the indictment with sufficient definiteness. He also demurred to the bill, and moved to quash. Overruled; exception.
The defendant in apt time requested the
[166 S.E. 337]court to instruct the jury as follows: "The State relies upon the testimony of one Curtis Smith, together with such other facts and circumstances that you may find from the evidence that tend to corroborate the testimony of the said Curtis Smith. The Court charges...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers, 363
...has made statements corresponding to the testimony given by him at the trial. State v. Tate, 210 N.C. 613, 188 S.E. 91; State v. McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336; State v. Rhodes, 181 N.C. 481, 106 S.E. 456. The trial judge restricted the evidence of Jordan to corroborative purposes at......
-
State v. Summerlin, 219
...224 N.C. 854, 29 S.E.2d 464; State v. Johnson, 218 N.C. 604, 12 S.E.2d 278; State v. Tuttle, 207 N.C. 649, 178 S.E. 76; State v. McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336. See, also, Rule 19(3) Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. The defendant's exception No. 88 is to the following......
-
State v. Davis
......State v. Williams, supra; 140 A.L.R. 169; State v. McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336; State v. Gore, 207 N.C. 618, 178 S.E. 209. Nor can the defendant's exception to the testimony of the witness Jackson that the defendant Davis, in the course of a conversation about the latter's relations with Lola Mae Reeves, said "he was guilty." If, as ......
-
State v. Davis
...... after she had gone upon the stand, that she had made. substantially the same statement to Miss Wooten at the. inception of the investigation, and Miss Wooten's. testimony was by the court carefully restricted to this. purpose. State v. Williams, supra; 140 A.L.R. 169; State. v. McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336; State v. Gore, 207 N.C. 618, 178 S.E. 209. Nor can the. defendant's exception to the testimony of the witness. Jackson that the defendant Davis, in the course of a. conversation about the latter's relations with Lola Mae. Reeves, said 'he was guilty.' If, as ......