State v. Rice, 586.
| Decision Date | 23 March 1932 |
| Docket Number | No. 586.,586. |
| Citation | 202 N. C. 411,163 S.E. 112 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. RICE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Madison County; Stack, Judge.
Jack Rice was convicted of manslaughter, and of assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill, and he appeals.
New trial.
The defendant was indicted in two separate indictments. The first indictment charged him with the murder of McKinley Shelton, and the second charged an assault upon Delbert Shelton with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. Before the jury was impaneled the solicitor announced in open court that he would not ask for conviction for murder in the first degree upon the first bill of indictment but for murder in the second degree, ormanslaughter, or not guilty as the evidence might warrant. The defendant was placed on trial on the first bill, and pleaded not guilty. Whereupon, a jury was selected and impaneled. Thereupon the state offered testimony. Near the conclusion of the testimony of the first witness for the state the trial judge made the following declaration from the bench: The defendant excepted to the order consolidating said bills of indictment.
The defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and also of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. He was sentenced to the state's prison for a period of not less than ten nor more than fifteen years upon the murder indictment and for not less than seven nor more than ten years in the indictment charging assault with a deadly weapon. The latter judgment, however, was to be suspended if the defendant should pay the sum of $1,000, one-half to the school fund and the other half to the state's witness, Delbert Shelton.
From judgment pronounced, defendant appealed.
Guy V. Roberts, J. Coleman Ramsey, and John H. McElroy, all of Marshall, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was charged with a capital felony. When the case was called for trial, the solicitor announced that he would not press the charge for capital felony, but would ask for a verdict for murder in the second degree or manslaughter. The defendant pleaded not guilty, and a jury was sworn and impaneled. The state began to offer testimony, and introduced a witness named Delbert Shelton, who proceeded to testify as to the events resulting in the killing of McKinley Shelton by the defendant. After the first witness for the state had practically completed his direct examination, the trial judge, of his own motion, brought into the case by consolidation another indictment charging the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Harris
...to the court's attention, and not at a time when the validity of the whole trial might seriously be threatened by the consolidation. State v. Rice, supra. It is rare we find a consolidation of capital indictments, though there are some, usually by consent, the most recent one being in the c......
-
State v. McKinnon
...contend the judgment is void, citing State v. Cunningham, 94 N.C. 824; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604; and State v. Rice, 202 N.C. 411, 163 S.E. 112. think the facts here, as to the plea, are substantially like the facts presented in the case of State v. Harvey, 214 N.C. 9, 197 S......
-
State v. Chapman
...the cases for the purpose of trial. The defendant contends that the consolidation was prejudicial. The case of State v. Rice, 202 N.C. 411, 163 S.E. 112, 113, holds: "C.S.§ 4622, regulates the consolidation criminal actions. This statute has been construed in many decisions of this court. I......
-
State v. Norton
...In such cases there is statutory authority for consolidation. C.S. § 4622; State v. Combs, 200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 252; State v. Rice, 202 N.C. 411, 163 S.E. 112; v. Chapman, 221 N.C. 157, 19 S.E.2d 250, and numerous cases there cited. In State v. Combs, supra [200 N.C. 671, 158 S.E. 254], i......