State v. Poll

• Decision Date: 31 December 1821
• Citation: 8 N.C. 442
• Parties: STATE v. POLL and LAVINIA, slaves, etc.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

8 N.C. 442

STATE

v.POLL and LAVINIA, slaves, etc.

SUPREME COURT OF NORTH CAROLINA

DECEMBER TERM, 1821.

1. The declarations of a deceased person, that he was poisoned by certain individuals, not made immediately previous to his death, but at a time when he despaired of his recovery, and felt assured his disease would prove fatal, are admissible as dying declarations.

2. When a common design is proven, the act of one in furtherance of that design is evidence against his associates, but the declarations of one of the parties can be received only against himself.

3. It is not competent for owners of slaves, or their counsel, to consent to the removal of a criminal cause against such slave; it cannot be otherwise removed than on affidavit.

THIS was an indictment against the prisoners and one John Skinner for the murder of Samuel Skinner, by poisoning, from CHOWAN. The bill was originally found by a grand jury of the

county of Washington, and, after arraignment and the plea of not guilty, recorded severally for each. The solicitor for the State, and the prisoner John Skinner consented to remove his case to the county of Chowan for trial, and the owner and counsel of the other two prisoners consented, with the State's officer, to a similar removal of the cases of Poll and Lavinia.

The indictment against Poll and Lavinia came on to be tried in Chowan Superior Court, before Daniel, J., and the following outline presents such facts as are necessary for a correct understanding of the points raised. The poison alleged to have been given was white arsenic; and the object of the State was to show that John Skinner purchased the poison, under false pretences, and gave it to the prisoners (who were domestics in the family of Samuel Skinner), and that they mixed it with the food and drink of Samuel. The State, to prove a conversation between the prisoners, introduced a witness who accidentally overheard it, and he stated that they spoke of having put something into Samuel Skinner's soup which would kill him and all others who partook of it. Lavinia then advised Poll to carry someof that which they had put into the soup into the house, and if, during the night, Samuel Skinner called for water, to put some in the water, adding, "That is the way he said do it"; and Poll accordingly took down from a shelf something wrapped in paper, and, putting another wrapper of paper over the first, placed it in her bosom. On examination before the committing magistrate, Lavinia said that he, referred to in the conversation stated, was John Skinner, who had given to Poll something like lime, but it was heavier.

The solicitor for the State then offered to prove, by a declaration of John Skinner, that he. had purchased a quantity of arsenic just before, under the pretence, as the State alleged, of curing the horse of one Mariner of poll evil. This declaration was objected to, but the court received it; and Mariner then proved that he never requested John Skinner to purchase arsenic to cure his horse, and, in fact, never had a horse diseased with a poll evil.

Samuel Skinner died on Thursday, and his declarations, from the Sunday previous up to his death, were offered in evidence. These were objected to, as not being dying declarations, but the court received them. He stated his belief that he should die, though he was occasionally better. He said he was poisoned, and, as he believed, by Poll, who had given him something in his food and drink.

The jury found the prisoners guilty, and a new trial was moved for—first, because Samuel Skinner's declarations were

improperly received; and, secondly, because the declarations of John Skinner, that he had purchased arsenic, were not evidence against the prisoner. A new trial was refused; and it was then moved, in arrest of judgment, that the Superior Court of Chowan had not jurisdiction of the cause. The motion was overruled and sentence of death pronounced, from which the prisoners appealed.

TAYLOR, C. J. The declarations of the deceased, madeat the time when he despaired of his recovery and felt sure that, though he was something better after the physician attended him, his disease would prove ultimately fatal, appear to me to have been properly admitted. The latest and most authoritative cases show that the court is to decide, and not the jury, whether the deceased made the declaration under the apprehension of death. 1 East Pl. Cr., 357—John's case. But, as to the declarations of John Skinner, I know of no principle upon which they could be received as evidence against the prisoners. Even if he were a party to the record, they could be evidence only...