State v. Rowe
Citation | 71 S.E. 332,155 N.C. 436 |
Parties | STATE v. ROWE. |
Decision Date | 17 May 1911 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Appeal from Superior Court, Mitchell County; Pell, Judge.
Charles Rowe was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Where in a prosecution for homicide, defendant admitted killing deceased by shooting him with a shotgun, but pleaded self-defense, the jury having disregarded such plea, it was their duty to convict him of murder in the second degree, and hence he could not complain that a conviction of manslaughter was unsustainable.
The defendants, Charles Rowe and Wesley Rowe, were indicted for the murder of Filmore Rose. Wesley Rowe was acquitted, and Charles Rowe was convicted of manslaughter. The killing was admitted by the defendant, Charles Rowe; his plea being self-defense. The evidence is voluminous, but, for the purpose of considering the exceptions, the following statement of facts, and a portion of the evidence, will suffice:
The deceased, whose wife was a first cousin of the prisoner, had in cultivation a field about a mile from his home, and, in order to reach the field, it was necessary for him to go over an old road which was used by the public at will, across the property of the defendant. At one place the road was rough and difficult to pass. The deceased on one or two occasions drove a little out of the usual bed of the road, allowing his wagon to run over the land and clover of the defendant. On the morning of the homicide, the two defendants left home early, about 7 o'clock, one with an axe and the other with a gun, to place some poles along the road to prevent trespassing, as they alleged. From this point the evidence of the state and the defendant conflicts. The state's witness, Avery Rose, the 16 year old son of deceased, and the only one present at the homicide except deceased and the two defendants, testified: The witness further testified that neither he nor his father had a pistol or other weapon of any kind, and there was no evidence that one was found on the body. The wife of the deceased testified that deceased had not had a pistol for over 20 years. The appellant testified in his own behalf, and after telling about going to the place of the homicide on the morning when they met, and doing a little work on the road, continued as follows: The witness further testified that, when he reached his home, he changed his clothing and reloaded the gun, and went with it to Spruce Pine, and surrendered himself to an officer. He took the gun with him because he thought he would be assaulted. There was evidence tending to show that the prisoner and the deceased were very unfriendly at the time of the homicide, and had been for some time before. He had spoken before to the deceased about driving on his land, and the deceased became angry and quarreled with him, though he did not quarrel himself, but spoke mildly to him. The defendant, in this connection, testified: He further stated that he bore no malice towards the deceased at the time of the shooting; that he had learned not to entertain malice; that the clover and grass were not worth much, not over ten cents; that deceased weighed about 140 pounds and the boy Avery Rose, about 125 pounds, and that he and his brother, Wesley, each weighed about 165 pounds. There was evidence that the prisoner and his brother, Wesley, did not start from home together. They met at the river, a half mile from the place of the homicide, prisoner with the axe and Wesley with the gun, which he carried for his brother to shoot squirrels with, as he did not hunt.
During the trial, after four of the counsel had closed their addresses to the jury, and just after one of the defendant's counsel had spoken, the judge said to the sheriff: Defendant excepted. The defendant requested the court to charge the jury that the language used by him when talking to the deceased about keeping off the clover was not calculated to provoke a difficulty or...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Robinson
...155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332, 336; State v. Lancaster, 169 N.C. 284, 84 S.E. 529; State v. Crisp, 170 N.C. 785, 87 S.E. 511, 513. In State v. Rowe, supra, a homicide case, the court "Whether language is provocative or not cannot always be determined by a mere consideration of the words by them......
-
State v. Lane
... ... by this court in indictments for homicide. State v ... Quick, 150 N.C. 820, 64 S.E. 168. This principle has ... been reiterated by us in more recent cases. State v ... Worley, 141 N.C. 764, 53 S.E. 128; State v ... Yates, 155 N.C. 450, 71 S.E. 317; State v ... Rowe, 155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332; State v ... Simonds, 154 N.C. 197, 69 S.E. 790; State v ... Cox, 153 N.C. 638, 69 S.E. 419; State v ... Fowler, 151 N.C. 731, 66 S.E. 567; and formerly in ... [81 S.E. 623.] ... State v. Clark, 134 N.C. 698, 47 S.E. 36; State v ... Brittain, 89 N.C. 481. An ... ...
-
State v. Davis
...was strictly in accordance with precedents. State v. Brittain, 89 N.C. 481; State v. Simonds, 154 N.C. 197, 69 S.E. 790; State v. Rowe, 155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332; v. Yates, 155 N.C. 450, 71 S.E. 317; State v. Heavener, 168 N.C. 156, 83 S.E. 732. Besides, the conviction was of manslaughter, ......
-
State v. Gregory
... ... to the satisfaction of the jury, unless they arise out of the ... evidence against him." This rule has since been ... uniformly adhered to in indictments for homicide. State ... v. Cox, 153 N.C. 638, 69 S.E. 419; State v ... Yates, 155 N.C. 450, 71 S.E. 317; State v ... Rowe, 155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332; State v. Lane, ... 166 N.C. 333, 81 S.E. 620; State v. Cameron, 166 ... N.C. 379, 81 S.E. 748; State v. Pasour, 183 N.C ... 793, 111 S.E. 779; State v. Ashburn, 187 N.C. 717, ... 122 S.E. 833, and formerly in State v. Clark, 134 ... N.C. 698, 47 S.E. 36; State v ... ...