State v. Mclaughlin
| Decision Date | 01 April 1900 |
| Citation | 126 N.C. 1080,35 S.E. 1037 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | state v. Mclaughlin. |
CRIMINAL. LAW—RAPE—WITNESSES—CROSS-EXAMINATION.
Where, in a prosecution for rape, accused had examined the committing magistrate as to the prosecutrix's statement before him, for the purpose of showing discrepancies in such statement and her testimony at the trial, it was error to allow the state to ask the magistrate, on cross-examination, if the testimony of the prosecutrix was not substantially the same as at the preliminary hearing, and to allow him to answer that she ha 1 testified to about the same facts at both trials, as the question was for the jury.
Appeal from Superior court, Robeson county; Timberlake, Judge.
Dockery McLaughlin was convicted of rape, and on appeal to the superior court the judgment was reversed, and the state appeals. Affirmed.
McLean & McLean and the Attorney General, for the State.
J. D. Shaw, Jr., and G. B. Patterson, for appellee.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape in the criminal court. On appeal to the superior court, his honor held that there was error in the trial, and the state appealed to this court.
During the trial the prosecutrix, Harriet McMillan, was examined and cross-examined. The defendant examined the committing justice of the peace as to the evidence of the prosecutrix before him, who recited her evidence fully to the jury, for the purpose of showing discrepancies in her two statements. The state, on cross-examination, proposed to ask the witness "if the testimony of Harriet McMillan, the prosecutrix, in this court, was substantially the same as It was on the hearing before him in the justice's court." The objection of the defendant was overruled, and the question admitted, and the defendant excepted. The witness said, "She testified to about the same on both trials." The admission of this question and answer was error. The general rule of law is that the jury (or the judge, as the case may be) are the triors of matters of dispute, and form their conclu-sions from the tacts before them, and not upon the opinions of others on the subject So that facts, and not opinions, are to be listened to by the jury. To this general rule there are some exceptions: (1) The opinion of experts. (2) Opinions on the question of identity. (3) Opinions received from necessity; 1. e. when, from the nature of the subject under investigation, no better evidence can be obtained. Illustration: Whether A. was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Corbett
...in Ms. Small's statement to him was properly excluded. E.g., State v. Miller, 302 N.C. 572, 276 S.E.2d 417 (1981); State v. McLaughlin, 126 N.C. 1080, 35 S.E. 1037 (1900). Next, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to charge the jury on rape in the second degree in the cas......
-
State v. Summerlin
...on the part of the witness, and violated the general hearsay rule, and invaded the province of the jury, citing State v. McLaughlin, 126 N.C. 1080, 35 S.E. 1037, and Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, Sec. If the solicitor had pursued his inquiry no further as to what Chappell told him, this excepti......
-
State v. Neville
...as an expert, and there was no ground to except her from the general rule that a witness may testify only to facts. State v. McLaughlin, 126 N.C. 1080, 35 S.E. 1037. She was not expressing an impression created on her mind to what she saw (State v. McDowell, 129 N.C. 524, 39 S.E. 840), but ......
-
State v. Bush
...on the part of the witness, and violated the general hearsay rule, and invaded the province of the jury, citing State v. McLaughlin, 126 N.C. 1080, 35 S.E. 1037, and Stansbury, N.C. Evidence, Sec. If the solicitor had pursued his inquiry no further as to what Chappell told him, this excepti......