State v. Sailor
Decision Date | 07 April 1954 |
Docket Number | No. 366,366 |
Citation | 240 N.C. 113,81 S.E.2d 191 |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE, v. SAILOR. |
M. B. Sherrin, Jr., Concord, for defendant-appellant.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., Claude L. Love, Asst. Atty. Gen., William P. Mayo, Member of Staff, Washington, for the State.
Subornation of perjury, the crime of which defendant stands convicted, consists in procuring another to commit the crime of perjury. G.S. § 14-210; State v. Chambers, 180 N.C. 705, 104 S.E. 670; State v. Cannon, 227 N.C. 336, 42 S.E.2d 343; Bell v. State, 5 Ga.App. 701, 63 S.E. 860.
The principle is aptly stated by Hill, C. J., in the Bell case, supra, in this manner:
Perjury, as defined by common law and enlarged by statute in this State, G.S. § 14-209, is 'a false statement under oath, knowingly, wilfully and designedly made, in a proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction, or concerning a matter wherein the affiant is required by law to be sworn, as to some matter material to the issue or point in question.' State v. Smith, 230 N.C. 198, 52 S.E.2d 348, 349, and cases cited.
And in a prosecution for perjury it is required that the falsity of the oath be established by the testimony of two witnesses, or by one witness and corroborating circumstances,--adminicular circumstances, as the late Chief Justice Stacy was wont to say, if you please,--sufficient to turn the scales against the defendant's oath. State v. Rhinehart, 209 N.C. 150, 183 S.E. 388; State v. Hill, 223 N.C. 711, 28 S.E.2d 100; State v. Webb, 228 N.C. 304, 45 S.E.2d 345. See also State v. Peters, 107 N.C. 876, 12 S.E. 74; State v. Hawkins, 115 N.C. 712, 20 S.E. 623; State v. Sinodis, 205 N.C. 602, 172 S.E. 190.
In the Hill case, supra, [223 N.C. 711, 28 S.E.2d 103] this Court, in opinion by Seawell, J., declared: See Annotation 111 A.L.R. 825.
In the light of these principles and rules of evidence, applied to the evidence offered upon the trial in Superior Court, as shown in the record on this appeal, taken in the light most favorable to the State, the Court is constrained to hold, at the threshold, that proof of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pendleton v. State
...P.2d 878; Whitaker v. Commonwealth, 1950, 314 Ky. 303, 234 S.W.2d 971; Edison v. Commonwealth, Ky.1953, 257 S.W.2d 588; State v. Sailor, 1954, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191; Blackstone v. State, 1949, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 62, 225 S.W.2d 184; 70 C.J. Perjury § 68, p. There is no detailed rule prescri......
-
State v. Lucas
...180 N.C. 705, 104 S.E. 670; State v. Cannon, 227 N.C. 336, 42 S.E.2d 343; Bell v. State, 5 Ga.App. 701, 63 S.E. 860; State v. Sailor, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191. The principle is aptly stated by Hill, C. J., in the Bell case, supra, in this manner: 'The crime of subornation of perjury cons......
-
State v. King, 827
...a charge of perjury would be a dangerous doctrine.' Certainly this Court will not adopt any such doctrine. In the case of State v. Sailor, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191, this Court quoted with approval from the opinion in Bell v. State, 5 Ga.App. 701, 63 S.E. 860, as follows: "The crime of su......
-
Burns v. Clayton
...of two essential elements, viz.: (1) procuring or inducing one to commit perjury, and (2) his commission of perjury, State v. Sailor, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191; Hammer v. United States, 271 U.S. 620, 46 S.Ct. 603, 70 L.Ed. 1118; 41 Am.Jur., Perjury, Section 74; and that the second of thes......