State v. Reid
| Decision Date | 26 November 1919 |
| Docket Number | 402. |
| Citation | 101 S.E. 104,178 N.C. 745 |
| Parties | STATE v. REID. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Anson County; Shaw, Judge.
James Reid was convicted of the crime of being accessory before the fact to the crime of arson, and he appeals. Reversed for new trial.
Where defendant was charged with being an accessory before the fact to the crime of arson, it was improper to allow the prosecution, for the purpose of showing motive, to read in evidence a formal written notice signed by the owner of the burned dwelling and other influential persons in the community, forbidding defendant and his wife from going upon their land under penalties of the law, for such statement was hearsay and prejudicial, giving the jury the unsworn estimate of influential property owners that the defendant was an undesirable neighbor and unworthy citizen.
Defendant was indicted for crime of arson of a dwelling, tenement house, owned by R. F. Bennet and occupied by John McLendon and family, a tenant on the owner's farm. A second count charged that the house was burned by one Tom Simons, at the instigation and procurement of defendant, the court being formally as an accessory before the fact to the principal crime.
During the progress of the trial, with consent of the solicitor, a verdict of not guilty was entered on the first count, and the issue was submitted as to the guilt of the defendant on the count charging him with being accessory before the fact. There was a separate indictment against Tom Simons, preceding the charge against defendant which had not been tried or disposed of.
A. A Tarlton, of Wadesboro, and Stack, Parker & Craig, of Monroe for appellant.
Jas. S Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
There is no merit in defendant's first objection that his cause was tried before that of Tom Simons, the alleged principal felon, and before said Simons had been called on to plead. The course pursued comes directly within the broad provisions of the statute controlling the subject. Rev. § 3287 enacting, among other things, that on a charge of being accessory before the fact defendant may be tried with the principal felon or after his conviction, or may be indicted and tried for a substantive felony "whether the principal shall or shall not have been convicted and shall or shall not be amenable to justice," etc., and authoritatively approved in State v. Stephens, 170 N.C. 745, 87 S.E. 131, and other cases. On careful consideration, however, we are of opinion that the defendant is entitled to a new trial by reason of certain errors in the ruling of the court on questions of evidence.
The testimony on the part of the state tended to show that Tom Simons burned the house, and that he was instigated to do the act by defendant, who was to pay the witness $150 for doing it, and that defendant's wife had paid witness for her husband $15 on the amount promised. The record shows that this principal witness had at first and for some time denied that he burned the house or knew anything about it, and having been cross-examined in reference to these facts, in reply the following questions and answers were admitted over de...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Portee
... ... should have been such as to call for a denial on his part, ... and to afford him an opportunity to make it." 16 C.J ... Was the ... present occasion such as to call for a reply from Simon ... Portee? I think not. State v. Reid, 178 N.C. 745, ... 101 S.E. 104. He had already, in effect, made a different ... statement to the officers. What more could he accomplish by ... denying again what his wife had said? ... Silence ... alone, in the face or hearing of an accusation, is not what ... makes it ... ...
-
State v. Walters
...excluded the evidence apparently on the ground it violated the hearsay rule. State v. Lassiter, 191 N.C. 210, 131 S.E. 577; State v. Reid, 178 N.C. 745, 101 S.E. 104. What the defendant understood to be the teachings of some unidentified instructor could add little, if anything, to the rule......
-
State v. Fulcher
...testimony. State v. Dillahunt, 244 N.C. 524, 94 S.E.2d 479 (1956); State v. Warren, 236 N.C. 358, 72 S.E.2d 763 (1952); State v. Reid, 178 N.C. 745, 101 S.E. 104 (1919). The declaration of the wife in the Dillahunt case would clearly have been incompetent hearsay, apart from G.S. 8-57, and,......
-
State v. Kluttz
...the present, C. S. § 1802, and it was error as to him to permit her to do so. State v. Aswell, 193 N.C. 399, 137 S.E. 174; State v. Reid, 178 N.C. 745, 101 S.E. 104; State v. Raby, 121 N.C. 682, 28 S.E. 490; v. Harbison, 94 N.C. 885. See, also, State v. Spivey, 151 N.C. 678, 65 S.E. 995, an......