State v. Melvin
| Decision Date | 19 October 1927 |
| Docket Number | 202. |
| Citation | 139 S.E. 762,194 N.C. 394 |
| Parties | STATE v. MELVIN. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Sampson County; Sinclair, Judge.
Fleet Melvin was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Exceptions sustained. New trial.
Where credibility of witness has been impaired, previous similar statements of witness are admissible as corroborating evidence.
The defendant was charged with the murder of Pauline Owens and was convicted of murder in the first degree. Sentence of death was imposed, and the defendant appealed.
The evidence tended to show that the defendant, a negro boy about 17 years old, had been going with the deceased, Pauline Owens, and that on the night of the homicide the deceased and another girl, named Mary Bradley, were going to a show; that the defendant was standing on the street when the deceased passed, "and he told her not to go by him with her little head hoisted up." She told him to go on. Thereafter the deceased upbraided the defendant for "watching her," and the deceased said: The defendant then
The defendant contended that the killing was accidental, that he and the deceased were playing with the knife, and in struggling over it the deceased was cut.
E. C Robinson, of Roseboro, and Butler & Herring, of Clinton, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
Mary Bradley, a witness for the state, and the only eyewitness to the killing, testified, in part:
Dr. J. S. Brewer, another state's witness, was permitted to testify that Mary Bradley told him that she and the deceased had started to the show, and as they started down the street Fleet came out, and that he and Pauline had some conversation about "watching her," *** and as they were crossing the street Fleet called to them, and Mary told her not to have anything to do with him and to go on, *** and as they came on to Dr. Brewer's house the argument seemed to get high, and that "Fleet jerked Pauline in the street and commenced jerking her and striking her, and that presently he got his knife, and then she started away and heard Pauline call to her, and looking around Fleet had Pauline down on the ground next to my hedge, and just as she looked around Fleet got up and ran."
The defendant objected to the testimony of Dr. Brewer and moved to strike it out. Motion was overruled, and defendant excepted.
The solicitor stated to the court that the statement of Dr. Brewer, that Mary Bradley told him "if he had come up a few minutes before he would have probably seen Fleet running," was not corroborative of the statement made by Mary Bradley, and asked that it be stricken out. This was done. The trial judge then stated to the jury that the evidence of Dr. Brewer was offered
A comparison of the testimony of the state's witnesses, Mary Bradley and Dr. Brewer, will disclose the following variations:
(1) Mary Bradley did not say "the argument seemed to get high." (2) Mary Bradley did not say, "Fleet jerked Pauline in the street and commenced jerking her and striking her, and presently he got his knife." This testimony of Dr. Brewer therefore contradicts the testimony of Mary Bradley, another state's witness, in material particulars, which, if believed, totally destroyed the theory of the defendant that the cutting was accidentally done.
It has been the law from ancient times that the state could not impeach or discredit its own witness. It was first held in State v. Norris, 2 N. C. 429, 1 Am. Dec. 564, that in criminal actions the state could discredit its own witness, but in a note to that case Judge Battle says it is not the law and calls attention to Sawrey v. Murrell, 3 N. C. 397. The Norris Case was expressly overruled in State v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 694, in which the following utterance of 1 Greenleaf, § 442, was approved:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Patterson
...when they are in fact consistent with the witness's testimony. State v. Bagley, 229 N.C. 723, 51 S.E.2d 298 (1949); State v. Melvin, 194 N.C. 394, 139 S.E. 762 (1927); 1 Stansbury's N.C. Evidence § 52, pp. 150--51 (Brandis Rev.1973). If the previous statements offered in corroboration are g......
-
State v. Warren, 14
...when they are in fact consistent with the witness's testimony. State v. Bagley, 229 N.C. 723, 51 S.E.2d 298 (1949); State v. Melvin, 194 N.C. 394, 139 S.E. 762 (1927); 1 Stansbury, N.C.Evidence § 52, pp. 150--51 (Brandis Rev. 1973). Nevertheless, if the testimony offered in corroboration is......
-
State v. Walker
...had gold in his teeth. ' The evidence discloses that the defendant had a front tooth out but had no gold in his teeth. In the case of State v. Melvin, supra, it was held the State not introduce in evidence the testimony of a witness and then undertake to impeach its own witness by the intro......
-
State v. Freeman
... ... 314, 16 S.E. 229; ... State v. Mace, 118 N.C. 1244, 24 S.E. 798; Smith ... v. Atlantic & C. Air Line R. Co., 147 N.C. 603, 61 S.E ... 575; Lynch v. Veneer Co., 169 N.C. 169, 85 S.E. 289; ... Worth Co. v. International Sugar Feed Co., 172 N.C ... 335, 90 S.E. 295; State v. Melvin, 194 N.C. 394, 139 ... S.E. 762; Clay v. Connor, 198 N.C. 200, 151 S.E ... 257; State v. Cohoon, 206 N.C. 388, 174 S.E. 91 ... For the ... state's violation of this rule in the present case, ... defendant is entitled to a new trial ... The ... record ... ...