State v. Reitz

• Decision Date: 30 June 1880
• Citation: 83 N.C. 634
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. ANGELO REITZ.

83 N.C. 634

STATE

v.ANGELO REITZ.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June Term, 1880.

INDICTMENT for burning a barn tried at Spring Term, 1880, of RUTHERFORD Superior Court, before McKoy, J.

The defendant was indicted for burning a barn. The evidence against him was circumstantial and he relied for his defence upon an alibi.

His Honor charged the jury in regard to an alibi, that if proved and established by testimony, it was the most complete and satisfactory defence that could be made; that when not complete, it could not avail the defendant. Whether an alibi is proved is a question for the jury. It is the duty of the jury to weigh the whole testimony, and if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the defendant, it is the duty of the jury to acquit. The state, before it can ask for a verdict of guilty, must offer to the jury such evidence as will fully satisfy the minds of the jury of the guilt of the defendant.

Exception was taken to the charge of His Honor, so far as it relates to the defence of an alibi, and some other exceptions were taken to the admission and rejection of testimony, as set out in the opinion of this court. There was a verdict of guilty and judgment from which the defendant appealed.

Attorney General, for the State .

Mr. J. C. L. Harris, for defendant .

ASHE, J.

We suppose the exception to the charge was to that part which stated that when an alibi is not complete it cannot avail the defendant. We see no error in this, for the evidence offered against the defendant was circumstantial and must have raised a strong presumption of his guilt, or he would not have been driven to the defence of an alibi. If the proof was of such a character as to raise a violent presumption it would behoove the defendant to make proof of his alibi to the full satisfaction of the jury, and that is what we understand is meant by making complete proof of the fact, and so we think the jury must have understood it, as His Honor qualified the expression by proceeding to say-- “whether an alibi is proved is a question for the jury. It is the duty of the jury to weigh the whole testimony, and if there is a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner it is the duty of the jury to acquit.” There is nothing in the charge that was calculated to mislead or prejudice the minds of the jury.

The first exception to the admissibility of evidence was to the admission of the testimony of a witness, who testified it was his best opinion that certain tracks found near the site of the burnt building were those of the prisoner. The reception of this evidence was objected to on the ground that the witness was not an expert. It is not necessary that a witness should be an expert to testify as to the identification of tracks. The correspondence between boots and footprints is a matter requiring no peculiar knowledge to judge of, and as to which any person who has seen both may testify. Commonwealth v. Pike, 103 Mass., 446. His testimony in such a case can amount to nothing...