State v. Mitchem

• Decision Date: 19 November 1924
• Docket Number: 449.
• Citation: 125 S.E. 190,188 N.C. 608
• Parties: STATE v. MITCHEM.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

125 S.E. 190

188 N.C. 608

STATE v. MITCHEM.

No. 449.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

November 19, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Gaston County; Stack, Judge.

R. Carl Mitchem was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.Affirmed.

Criminal prosecution, tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with murder in the first degree.From a conviction of manslaughter, and judgment pronounced thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning errors.

Where it was in evidence that photograph correctly represented scene of killing, it was not error to permit witness to use it in illustrating his testimony; photograph itself being excluded.

Clyde R. Hoey, of Selby, Ernest R. Warren and Carl E. Carpenter both of Gastonia, and Henry L. Kiser, of Bessemer City, for appellant.

J. S Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

STACY J.

There is no valid exception appearing on the record in this case.

The defendant complains at the action of the trial court in permitting one of the state's witnesses to use a photograph of the premises, where the homicide occurred, in explaining his testimony.It was in evidence that the photograph correctly represented the scene of the killing.The court expressly refused to permit the photograph to be introduced in evidence, but allowed the witness to use it in illustrating his testimony.The evidence as to the correctness of the photograph was sufficient to render it competent for the purposes of its use.State v Jones,175 N.C. 709, 95 S.E. 576, and cases there cited.See, also, Hampton v. R. R.,120 N.C. 534, 27 S.E 96, 35 L. R. A. 808;22 C.J. 913;10 R. C. L. 1153 et seq.

The exception stressed on the argument and chiefly relied upon in defendant's brief is the one addressed to the refusal of the court to arrest the judgment on the ground that the indictment was found by the grand jury solely upon the evidence of Lanie Mitchem, wife of the defendant herein.If this be a fact, which is not apparent on the face of the record, the defendant's objection should have been made, in apt time, by motion to quash or by plea in abatement.State v. Coates,130 N.C. 701, 41 S.E. 706;State v Oliver,186 N.C. 329, 119 S.E. 370.A motion in arrest of judgment, to be allowed, must be based on some matter which appears, or for the omission of some matter which ought to appear, on the face of the record.State v. Jenkins,164 N.C. 527, 80 S.E. 231;State v. Douglas,63 N.C. 500.

Speaking to the question in State v. Roberts,19 N.C. 540, Ruffin, C.J., said:

"Judgment can be arrested only for matter appearing in the record, or for some matter which ought to appear and does not appear in the record.If a bill of indictment be found without evidence, or upon illegal evidence, as upon the testimony of witnesses not sworn in court, the accused is not without remedy.Upon the establishment of the fact, the bill may be quashed.State v. Cain, 1 Hawks, 352.Or the matter may be pleaded in abatement.But the judgment cannot be arrested; for it is no part of the record, properly speaking, to set forth the witnesses examined before the grand jury, or the evidence given by them, more than it is to set out the same things in reference to the trial before the petit jury.A memorandum of the witnesses intended to be used is generally made on the bill by the prosecuting officer for his own convenience, that he may know whom to call; and the clerk usually avails himself of it, and marks the names of such as are sworn, in aid of his memory, if the fact should be disputed.But none of those indorsements are parts of the bill, or are proper to be engrossed in making up the record of a superior court; which merely states that it was presented by the jurors for the state upon their oaths."

See, also, State v. Lanier,90 N.C. 714;State v. Sultan,142 N.C. 569, 54 S.E. 841, 9 Ann. Cas. 310;State v. Frizell,111 N.C. 722, 16 S.E. 409;State v. Horton,63 N.C. 595.

There is nothing on the face of the record in the instant case to show that Lanie Mitchem is the wife of the defendant, or that she alone testified before the grand jury.State v. Roberts, supra.The indorsement by the grand jury on the bill of indictment forms no part of the record proper.State v. Sheppard,97 N.C. 401, 1 S.E. 879;State v. Hines,84 N.C. 810.

It has been held in at least two cases in this...