State v. Mckeithan
| Decision Date | 09 November 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 273.,273. |
| Citation | 166 S.E. 336,203 N.C. 494 |
| Parties | STATE. v. McKEITHAN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
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, 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 thecourt to instruct the jury as follows:
The court gave this request, but modified the last clause as follows: "Yet the law makes it the duty of the Court to say to you that in passing upon the testimony of an accomplice you should accept the same with care and caution, and your consideration of it should be in connection with the fact that he, himself, upon his own admission, is guilty of the crime."
The defendant excepts to the failure of the court to charge as requested and to the modification as noted.
From an adverse verdict, and judgment of from three to five years in the State's Prison and a fine of $500, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.
Varser, Lawrence, McIntyre & Henry, of Lumberton (H. W. B. Whitley, of Raeford, of counsel), for appellant.
D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The narration by a number of witnesses of what Curtis Smith told them about the burning...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rogers
...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
... ... 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 ... ...
-
State v. McKinnon
... ... N.C. 657, 150 S.E. 194; State v. Nance, 195 N.C. 47, ... 141 S.E. 468; State v. Colson, 193 N.C. 236, 136 ... S.E. 730. Being thus admissible, no error was committed in ... not restricting the purpose of the evidence. State v ... Tuttle, 207 N.C. 649, 178 S.E. 76; State v ... McKeithan, 203 N.C. 494, 166 S.E. 336; State v ... Steele, 190 N.C. 506, 130 S.E. 308; Rule 21, Rules of ... Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 544, 558 ... In the ... Tuttle case, supra, Schenck, J., says: "Nor was this ... evidence objectionable because the court did not ... ...