State v. Outerbridge
| Decision Date | 31 January 1880 |
| Citation | 82 N.C. 617 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBERT OUTERBRIDGE. |
INDICTMENT for Murder, tried at Fall Term, 1879, of BERTIE Superior Court, before Avery, J.
The prisoner is charged with the killing of one Peter Freeman in the county of Bertie. The first exception touching the qualification of a juror is stated in the opinion of this court. The evidence was as follows: One Seabrill, a witness for the state, testified that on the 17th of September, 1879, (the day on which the homicide is alleged to have been committed) he was engaged in rafting timber on the Roanoke river, and that deceased and four other men were in his employ; that after getting through with their work for the day they got into a small boat to go home, and stopped at a landing where the deceased got off about dark to go to his house, and after rowing up the river about one hundred yards, they heard the report of a gun and the voice of the deceased, saying, ““murder,” and then another report of a gun. The witness directed the men to row back to said landing, and on reaching it they got out of the boat and went up the road leading to the house of deceased and found his dead body in the road; they then went to prisoner's house a short distance off, and on approaching it the prisoner said in an excited manner, “who's that?” Upon arresting the prisoner he asked “what for?” and the witness replied “because Peter Freeman was lying dead across the road, and you have the only double-barrel gun in the neighborhood,” and prisoner replied, Witness then sent for the gun, and on examination of the barrel and tubes found that it had been discharged in a very short time before. He then found upon the hearth of the prisoner's house fragments of melted pewter which appeared to have been cut from bullets as they were being moulded.
It was also in evidence that a tree near the place where deceased was lying showed marks of two bullets, one of which having entered the tree was cut out; several bullet holes were seen in the back and shoulders of deceased; pieces of yellow paper were found near by, which corresponded with those seen on a table in prisoner's house; prisoner was arrested by a constable, and on the next day his person was searched and a pair of bullet moulds found in his pocket; the ball taken from the tree and one taken from the body of deceased fitted these moulds. After witness made this statement without objection, the prisoner's counsel asked him whether the bullets and moulds were in court, and witness replied he supposed they were in the possession of the solicitor; thereupon they were produced and exhibted to the jury and compared in their presence. After prisoner's counsel asked the question and elicited the answer, he moved the court to withdraw from the jury the statement of the witness that the bullets fitted the moulds. Motion overruled and prisoner excepted.
It was further in evidence that just before the moulds were found in prisoner's pocket he stated to a witness that he had sold them; that prisoner was seen with his gun on the morning before the homicide, with both barrels loaded; that about a month before the homicide, when prisoner on one occasion saw the deceased whipping his wife and quarrelling with her for receiving presents from the prisoner, he said in an angry manner “that he would put the deceased where the dogs could'nt bite him.” There was other evidence of similar threats. But no witness testified that the place where deceased was killed was in Bertie county, and in the absence of such evidence the special instruction set out in the opinion was asked by the prisoner and refused by the court. Verdict of guilty, motion in arrest overruled, appeal by prisoner.
Attorney General, for the State .
Messrs. Oct. Coke and Gilliam & Gatling, for prisoner .
The questions presented for our decision in this case arise from the exceptions...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Long
...of a motion in arrest. Even in indictments for murder it is "not necessary to prove that it was committed in the county." State v. Outerbridge, 82 N.C. 617. And Revisal 1905, § 3255, prohibits quashing, or judgment, for failing to aver "any matter unnecessary to be proved." Formerly failure......
-
People on Complaint of Igoe v. Nasella
...182 S.E. 705; Stacy v. State, 49 Okl.Cr. 154, 292 P. 885. And also to ballistics, People v. Soper, 243 N.Y. 320, 153 N.E. 433; State v. Outerbridge, 82 N.C. 617; Inbau, Firearms Identification--'Ballistics', 24 Jour.Crim.Law 825 It is not the office of the courts in their quest for truth, t......
-
Cain v. State
...altogether, except under a few peculiar circumstances. State v. Hildreth (1849), North Carolina 9 Ired. 440, 446, quoted in State v. Outerbridge (1879), 82 N.C. 617. Perhaps the primary cause for judicial hostility to such declarations is the fear of the consequences which admissibility wou......
-
State v. Dixon
...a reasonable doubt the prisoner waylaid and slew the deceased. The facts of this case in many particulars resemble those in State v. Outer-bridge, 82 N. C. 617. The prisoner assigns as error that the jury, during their deliberations, had the gun and the court docket in full view. The recita......