State v. Noblett

• Citation: 2 Jones 418,47 N.C. 418
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Decision Date: 31 August 1855
• Parties: STATE v. ALFRED W. NOBLETT.

2 Jones (NC) 418

47 N.C. 418

STATE

v.ALFRED W. NOBLETT.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August Term, 1855.

*1 It is not error in the trial of a capital case, to permit witnesses, who have been previously examined, to be recalled and re-examined after the jury have retired to consider of their verdict.

It is not error for the judge to refuse to tell the jury, that the evidence of a witness, who has made a mis-statement, must be rejected altogether.

Where a simple enumeration of circumstances leads to an irresistible conclusion of fact, the Court cannot be considered as expressing an opinion upon such fact, contrary to the Act of Assembly, in merely making such enumeration, there being no peculiar significancy of voice or manner in making it.

It is not a ground for arresting a judgment upon a conviction for murder that the word blow is used throughout the indictment for wound, there being other words used in the same context, which show that a wound was given, and what kind of a wound it was. The informality is cured by the Act of 1811.

NASH, C. J., dissented from the Court, on the question of arresting the judgment, believing that the substitution of blow, for wound, was a matter of substance, not cured by the Act of 1811.

THIS was an INDICTMENT for murder, tried before his Honor, Judge SAUNDERS, at the Spring Term, 1855, of Burke Superior Court.

The indictment charged the defendant with the murder of one John Davis, and was in the common form, with the two exceptions pointed out in the reasons given in arrest of judgment, and which need not be noticed here.

As all the material evidence in the case is interspersed in his Honor's statement of his charge to the jury, and as that statement was elaborately criticised at the bar, and is cautiously reviewed in the opinion of the Court, the Reporter deems it but just to give it entire, in the words of his Honor. It is as follows, viz:

“The Court charged the jury, that to sustain the indictment against the prisoner, it was for the State to show that a murder had been committed, the manner and time of doing it, and that the prisoner was the perpetrator of the crime: that being a case of circumstantial evidence, it was necessary for the State to establish every fact relied on as material to the prisoner's guilt, by testimony producing moral certainty in the minds of the jury, to the exclusion of every rational doubt, so as fully to satisfy their consciences. The jury were to decide as to what facts were established to their satisfaction: what were the just, fair, and legitimate inferences, and whether they produced in their minds, the necessary conclusion, that the prisoner was the murderer: that in a case of this kind, the jury should reject all doubtful testimony, and take no fact as proved, about which there was any just ground to doubt.

First: as to the killing. Did John Davis come to his death by violence or by natural causes? Unfortunately, there was no grounds to doubt the fact of his death: that his death was produced by the hand of violence, the State relies on the testimony of the widow, and of Eliza Davis, the daughter: that the deceased left his house on Sunday evening, the 4th of September last, then in his usual health, about half hour by sun, saying that he was going to his hog-pen, some hundred yards from his mill: that he was searched for that night and not found till next morning: that he was then found in the bed of the creek, dead, with several marks or bruises on the left side of the neck and head, as described by the witnesses--some saying three or four, and one ( Harkey) four or five, any three of which, in his opinion, was sufficiently severe to produce death: the opinion of the witness was worth nothing, but it was for the jury to say, whether from the wounds described by the witnesses, they were satisfied such was the result. They had stated these wounds were so severe, that on pressing with the finger on the side of the face, or head, the blood would gush out of the nose and ears. The gentleman who had been examined gave it as his medical opinion that, from the statement of the witnesses as to the character of the wounds, death would necessarily have followed: whether these several matters were true, was the province of the jury to decide. So the State relied on the other facts, as testified to by the witnesses, that blood was found in several places along the path near the bank of the creek, near to the place where the body was found--that there was hair, corresponding with that of the deceased, and his hat lying some five yards off: that a large club, as if freshly cut, and corresponding with the sapling from which it was supposed to have been cut, was found in the bed of the creek within a few steps of the body: taking these facts as true, and that was for them, could there exist any rational grounds to doubt as to the fact of killing? The prisoner's counsel had argued, that the deceased might have come to his death by falling into the creek and drowning, or by apoplexy; so he might, but it was for the jury to say whether such a death, under the circumstances was reasonable, or even probable.

*2 As to the manner of killing, it was not incumbent on the State to show that the blow if given, had been inflicted with the stick, as appeared in evidence, but any other thing calculated to inflict wounds of a similar kind, would support the indictment.

As to the time when the deceased was killed, if killed at all, you have no direct evidence; the testimony of the old lady and daughter is, that he left home a half hour by sun; that he was missing that night, and that he was found in the creek next morning; from the signs of blood near the path, and other discoveries, the jurors, who were on the inquest, and who were examined as witnesses, concluded he might have been killed, and probably was, about, or before sun-down; but on this point there was no direct evidence; it might have been at the time supposed, or during that night, as the witnesses, who made the examination on Sunday evening, say they found no signs until the next morning: the murder, by whomsoever perpetrated, from this evidence must have been done between the half hour by sun, when he was last seen alive, and sun-rise the next morning, when he was found dead: at what precise time it took place the State was not bound to show.

If the jury entertained any doubts on either of these points--the killing, or the manner of the death--their inquiry would stop, and they should acquit the prisoner. But if they were satisfied on these points, they would proceed to the important inquiry, so far as the prisoner was concerned, was he the perpetrator of the foul deed? In prosecuting this inquiry as before stated, the jury should reject every doubtful circumstance, and then say whether the facts they considered as proved, established the guilt of the prisoner, and that beyond all doubt?

First. The State says the prisoner had the opportunity of committing the murder: to establish this, the State relies on the fact as stated by the witnesses, that the prisoner lived within one mile of the place where the deed is supposed to have occurred, and that he was absent from home at the time, as testified to by the old lady, who, as she says, was living in the same house, and, as it is insisted, if the several witnesses are to be believed, was still in the neighborhood.

Secondly. The State says if the witnesses are to be believed, the prisoner had a motive for doing the act;--a difficulty had occurred between the deceased and the prisoner, in July previous to the alleged murder: the prisoner had been bound over to the Superior Court, and he applied to the witness, Logan Burgin, to be his security, and the witness swears that in the conversation, the prisoner said, if Davis swore that he struck him with a stick he swore to a lie, and added if he fools with him he would fix him so he could not swear again. The witness says he admitted he had struck him with his fist. The two witnesses, Bicknell, were examined as to what they had heard the prisoner say the day after the trial before the magistrate. The first says, he told him Davis had sworn he struck him with a stick, which he denied, and said, that man had better mind or he would put him where he would do no good. The other Bicknell heard prisoner say damned old pup, better not let him get hold of him: would kill him. On his wife reproving, said he had told deceased so. Vaughn swears he met the old man in the field soon after the offense occurred; that he was bleeding--told him that prisoner had struck him with a stick--told this to prisoner--he denied it, and said if deceased swore it he would kill him. This witness' testimony had been strongly objected to in the argument, because he had sworn falsely in swearing he had not been examined before the committing magistrates, and therefore, was not to be believed. The Court charged that if the witness had knowingly and corruptly sworn falsely, the jury would reject his testimony; but if it was a mistake, and not through corruption, then they would decide as to what credit they would give the testimony; so if they rejected it, they would then consider the other testimony on the points of motive and threats. Then as to the prisoner's absence, and the signs of blood on his clothes. His Counsel argued that he was not bound to show where he was; and the witnesses were mistaken as to the signs of blood; and that he might have got the blood in some other way. It is true, the prisoner was not bound to account for his absence, but if he failed to do so when informed of the charge against him, and that recently after the murder was alleged to have been committed, it would be for the jury to draw their own inference. The witnesses swore, when asked when he left home? when he came over? where he had been? and where he had staid? he answered he left home on Saturday; came over on Monday; and that he...