State v. Patterson

Decision Date30 June 1869
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. WILLIAM D. PATTERSON.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Evidence having been given that a person then upon trial for larceny, had been charged with the crime by the prosecutor, face to face, on being arrested under a State's warrant: it is competent for the defendant to show what his reply was to such accusation.

( State v. Swink, 2 D. & B. 9, cited and approved.)

LARCENY, tried before Cannon, J., at Spring Term, 1869, of the Superior Court of TRANSYLVANIA.

The defendant was indicted for stealing a hog, the property of one Lydey. It was shown on the part of the State that a warrant was issued against the defendant at the instance of the prosecutor, Lydey, and that when it was being served, Lydey charged the defendant with the theft. The counsel for the defendant then asked the witness (Lydey) what was the reply of the defendant to this accusation? To the reception of this evidence the Solictor objected; and the Court sustained the objection.

Vedict, guilty; Rule for new trial; Rule discharged; Judgment, and Appeal.

No counsel for the appellant.Attorney General, contra .

SETTLE, J.

From the statement of the case sent to this Court, it appears that while the warrant was being served at the house of the defendant, the prosecutor, Lydey, charged the defendant with stealing his hog. This evidence was introduced by the State.

Had the defendant remained silent, it would have been a circumstance which the jury might have taken into consideration in passing upon his guilt. State v. Swink, 2 Dev. & Bat. 9; for there is no doubt but that admissions implied from the conduct of a party are evidence against him, as well as express admissions. Surely, then, the State ought not to object to hearing what the defendant had to say in reply to a charge called out by the prosecution, when his silence would have been prejudicial.

The general rule is, that a person's own declarations are not admissible for him, except under a few peculiar circumstances. But it would be unfair to receive what others said to the accused, and refuse to hear what he said in reply. This opinion is not based upon the idea that the declarations of the defendant were a part of the res gestæ, as was contended for upon the trial below, but it rests upon the familiar principle, that when a party calls for a statement made at a given time and place, the opposite party is entitled to all that was said in the same conversation. This rule applies...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • State v. Fowler
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • May 25, 1949
    ...... N.C. 555, 191 S.E. 1; State v. Swink, 19 N.C. 9;. Anno. 26 A.L.R. 542; 2 A.L.R. 1030. The general rule is that. a confession, like a deposition, Landis Christmas Savings. Club v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 178 N.C. 403, 100 S.E. 607,. should be offered in its entirety. State v. Patterson, 63 N.C. 520. Whether any part of it should be. excluded, or admitted under special instructions according to. its relevancy, is a matter about which the courts are. divided. Anno. 2 A.L.R. 1029; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, s 820,. page 1439. . .          In. reply to the State's ......
  • State v. Fowler, 577.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • May 25, 1949
    ...Landis Christmas Savings Club v. Merchants Nat. Bank, 178 N.C. 403, 100 S.E. 607, should be offered in its entirety. State v. Patterson, 63 N.C. 520. Whether any part of it should be excluded, or admitted under special instructions according to its relevancy, is a matter about which the cou......
  • State v. Barnwell
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of North Carolina (US)
    • January 24, 1973
    ...all that was said, including any statements favorable to him. See State v. Fowler, 230 N.C. 470, 53 S.E.2d 853; State v. Patterson, 63 N.C. 520, Annot., 2 A.L.R. 1017 (1919), Annot., 26 A.L.R. 541 A Voir dire examinatiion was held to determine the connection, if any, between defendant's wri......
  • People v. Bowen
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • May 3, 1912
    ...Commonwealth v. Keyes, 11 Gray (Mass.) 323;Paulson v. State, 118 Wis. 89, 94 N. W. 771;State v. Napier, 65 Mo. 462;State v. Patterson, 63 N. C. 520; McAdory v. State, 62 Ala. 154; People v. Murphy, 39 Cal. 52;Hanrahan v. People, 91 Ill. 142;People v. Strong, 30 Cal. 151;People v. Farrell, 3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT