State v. Miller

• Decision Date: 09 May 1887
• Parties: STATE v. MILLER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

2 S.E. 363

97 N.C. 484

STATE v. MILLER.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 9, 1887

Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county.

Where the state based its case chiefly on the testimony of an accomplice, it was not error for the court, after instructing the jury that it was unsafe to convict on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice, to recapitulate the evidence relied upon by the state as corroborative of the testimony of the accomplice.

E. C Smith, for the State.

H. C Jones, for defendant.

DAVIS J.

This was a criminal action tried before MEARES, J., at October term, 1886, of the criminal court of Mecklenburg county. The defendant and one Sam Dicks were charged with stealing money from one William Boyd in 1886. Said Boyd was offered as a witness for the state, and testified that he had lost money at different times in August and September, to the amount of $175 or $200; that on the night of the fifteenth of September he lost $50 in bills, and a considerable amount in silver that the defendant lived on his plantation, and that one William Lucas, a colored boy, slept in a cook-room adjoining his chamber, from which a door opened into his chamber, and that this door was not locked or fastened; that he discovered the loss about midnight of the fifteenth of September, and arrested Lucas before daylight the next morning, and kept him under arrest during the entire day. The state then introduced the boy William Lucas, who testified that the defendant and one Dick had employed him to keep Boyd's dogs off while they went into Boyd's room and stole his money; that on the night of the fifteenth of September he did keep the dogs quiet, and they went into Boyd's room, and afterwards gave witness some of the money. He further testified that on one occasion he went with the defendant to the store of one Thompson, a few miles from Boyd's house, and that on that occasion the prisoner had a $10 bill, which he, the prisoner got Thompson to change, and with which he purchased some articles of clothing, and paid witness three dollars; that he never saw the bill until prisoner produced it in the store. Witness said, in his direct and redirect examination, that the transaction at Thompson's store was on the morning of the sixteenth of September, the morning after he saw the prisoner go into Boyd's house. On his cross-examination he said it occurred a week or so before the sixteenth of September. The defendant then introduced as a witness one William Thompson, (one of the owners of the store mentioned,) who testified that, on the occasion alluded to by Lucas, he, Lucas, and the prisoner, came to the store owned by his brother and himself; that Lucas took from his pocket the $10 bill alluded to, and handed it to prisoner, and the latter handed it to witness; that Lucas bought some articles from the store, and directed him to take payment from the bill; that he did so, and placed the change on the counter, and prisoner pushed the money to Lucas, and said, "Here is your money," and Lucas took it up and handed three dollars to the prisoner. This was about dark on the first of September. James Thompson testified to the same facts. The prisoner then in his own behalf testified, denying the statement of Lucas as to the stealing, and testified as to the transaction at Thompson's store, giving precisely the account given by William and James Thompson.

The case states that "there were other circumstances relied on by the state as corroborative evidence, but which are not material to the exceptions. The court instructed the jury that it was unsafe to convict the defendants [Miller and Dick were both on trial] upon the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice; that the most important witness for the state [Lucas] was an accomplice in the commission of the alleged crime, and that he stood before the jury in the attitude of a self-confessed thief, and the jury ought not to convict these defendants upon the statement of Lucas, unless his statements had been...