State v. Perry, 219.
| Decision Date | 24 November 1937 |
| Docket Number | No. 219.,219. |
| Citation | 193 S.E. 727,212 N.C. 533 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. PERRY. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Chatham County; S. J. Ervin, Jr., Special Judge.
William Perry was convicted of murder, and he appeals.
No error.
H. M. Jackson, of Sanford, and F. C Upchurch, of Pittsboro, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
This defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, and from sentence of death appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.
We have examined all of the exceptive assignments of error made by the defendant, and find no error in the record.
The contention of the defendant for judgment of nonsuit upon his demurrer to the evidence (C.S. § 4643) cannot be sus-tained, either generally, or as to the charge of murder in the first degree, as there was sufficient evidence in the confession of the defendant to carry the case to the jury upon the charge of the capital offense.
The defendant assigns as error the admission in evidence of a purported confession. This assignment cannot be sustained, as there was ample evidence to support the court's ruling. Both of the witnesses, by whom it was sought to prove the confession, testified that the defendant was advised that what he might say would be used against him, and that no inducements were held out nor threats made to the defendant to cause him to make the statements or confession, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Voluntary confessions are competent, State v. Bowden, 175 N.C. 794, 95 S.E. 145, and the ruling of the trial judge upon whether a confession was voluntarily made, after consideration of all the evidence offered as to the voluntariness, is ordinarily not reviewable. State v. Whit-ener, 191 N.C. 659, 132 S.E. 603, and cases there cited, State v. Stefanoff, 206 N.C. 443, 174 S.E. 411.
The assignments of error as to the admission in evidence of certain maps and photographs of the scene of the homicide cannot be sustained, as the judge was careful to instruct the jury that such maps and photographs were competent only for the purpose of permitting the witnesses to explain their testimony, and were not substantive evidence. State v. Jones, 175 N.C. 709, 95 S.E. 576; State v. Lutterloh, 188 N.C. 412, 124 S.E. 752; Honeycutt v. Brick Co., 196 N.C. 556, 146 S.E. 227.
The assignments of error as to the charge are untenable. The judge made a fair and impartial statement of the evidence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Atkinson, 22
... ... See: State v. Norris, 242 N.C. 47, 86 S.E.2d 916; State v. Perry, 212 N.C. 533, 193 S.E. 727. The fact that a photograph depicts a horrible, gruesome and revolting scene, indicating a vicious, calculated act of ... [275 N.C. 312] State v. Gardner, supra; State v. Miller, 219 N.C. 514, 14 S.E.2d 522. Obviously, the fact that the photograph was taken and portrays the condition of the body at some time after the homicide ... ...
-
State v. Doss
...evidence. The photographs were competent for that purpose. State v. Norris, 242 N.C. 47, 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955); State v. Perry, 212 N.C. 533, 193 S.E. 727 (1937). In State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. at 311, 167 S.E.2d at 255, this Court said: '* * * The fact that a photograph depicts a horrible, ......
-
State v. Rogers
...by all the facts appearing in evidence at the time of the admission of the confessions. State v. Alston, supra; State v. Perry, 212 N.C. 533, 193 S.E. 727, 729. This brings us to the question whether the trial judge committed error in admitting the footprint evidence given by the State's wi......
-
State v. Boyd
...(1969); Accord, State v. Doss, 279 N.C. 413, 183 S.E.2d 671 (1971); State v. Norris, 242 N.C. 47, 86 S.E.2d 916 (1955); State v. Perry, 212 N.C. 533, 193 S.E. 727 (1937). Defendant objects to the admission in evidence of a .32 caliber 'Spain' revolver (State's Exhibit No. 6) and expert test......