State v. Nat
| Decision Date | 31 December 1858 |
| Citation | 6 Jones 114,51 N.C. 114 |
| Parties | STATE v. NAT, a slave. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
It is not to be presumed that a master will cause his slave to fly upon his being accused of a capital offense, and therefore, the flight of a slave, under such circumstances, operates against him as well as against a white man.
Where, upon the trial of a slave for a capital offense, the credibility of slaves is drawn in question, it was Held legitimate for the Judge to direct the attention of the jury to the fact, that they were fellow servants of the prisoner, and that he might illustrate the matter by comparing it to cases of persons nearly related in blood.
Where witnesses, upon a trial, exhibit feeling and partiality, the presiding Judge may, with propriety, comment upon such deportment, and point it out as a circumstance, calculated to affect their credit.
INDICTMENT for an attempt to commit a rape upon a white woman, tried before CALDWELL, Judge, at the last Fall Term of Northampton Superior Court.
On the trial, the State offered to prove, that immediately after the offense and the charge against the prisoner, he fled, and though searched for under process, by an officer, he could not be found for a week or two. The defendant's counsel objected to this evidence, but it was admitted by the Court. The defendant excepted.
One of the counts, in the indictment, charged the defendant to be the property of one Edwards, in whose possession he was, and had been, and who superintended his defense. On the trial, two slaves were introduced by the defendant, to show an alibi, to wit, Sam and his wife Lucy. It appeared that Lucy was domiciled in the family of Mr. Edwards at the time the offense was committed, and that Sam, her husband, came to see her once in three weeks. In the charge of the Court to the jury, his Honor said, there was a conflict in the testimony, as to the whereabouts of the defendant, at the time the offense was committed; that a jury, when they came to sit in judgment upon the integrity of witnesses, had a right to look, and ought to look, to the relation in which they stand to the parties and to the cause; that it was settled by authority, that when near relations deposed for near relations, their testimony was to be received, and ought to be received, with many grains of allowance; and left it to the jury to say, how far the relation of the said Sam and wife Lucy to the said Edwards, and their being the fellow servants of the prisoner, affected their credit. Defendant again excepted.
Sam and Lucy, on their respective examinations, showed much feeling and partiality for the prisoner, and the Court, upon this part of the case, said to the jury, that it was not always necessary to introduce witnesses to impeach a witness; that a witness might discredit himself by his deportment on the stand, and he left it to the jury to say, whether these two negroes were self-possessed and impartial, and how far their credit was affected by their deportment, when giving their evidence. Defendant's counsel again excepted.
The jury found the defendant guilty. There was judgment, and appeal by the prisoner.
Attorney General, for the State .
Barnes and Hardy, for the defendant .
The counsel for the prisoner have, in their bill of exceptions, assigned two errors as having been committed on the trial by the presiding Judge; the first, in the admission of improper testimony; and the second, in an improper instruction to the jury.
The testimony to which objection was made, was, that soon after the offense was alleged to have been committed,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Epps
...of a crime the person charged with its commission flies [fled], is admitted as a circumstance to be considered by the jury. State v. Nat, 51 N.C. 114." Attorney General (now a member of this Court) in his able and well prepared brief, says: "Counsel for defendant has raised for the first ti......
- State v. McKinnon
-
State v. Faust
...from which probable bias may be inferred is infinite. * * *' Wigmore on Evidence, 3d Ed. (1940), Vol. III, § 949, pp. 499-504. State v. Nat., 51 N.C. 114; People v. Cowan, (1905), 1 Cal.App. 411, 82 P. There is a strong possibility of a relationship of sympathy between the people gathered a......
-
State v. Lawrence
...of a crime, the person charged with its commission flies (fled), is admitted as a circumstance to be considered by the jury. S. v. Nat, 51 N.C. 114. So it is held that if prisoner, when arrested, attempts to make his escape, or attempts to bribe the officer to let him escape, the evidence i......