State v. Sailor

• Decision Date: 07 April 1954
• Docket Number: No. 366,366
• Citation: State v. Sailor, 240 N.C. 113, 81 S.E.2d 191 (N.C. 1954)
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE, v. SAILOR.

Page 191

81 S.E.2d 191

240 N.C. 113

STATE, v. SAILOR.

No. 366

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

April 7, 1954

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.

WINBORNE, Justice.

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: 'The crime of subornation of perjury consists of two essential elements--the commission of perjury by the person suborned, and willfully procuring or inducing him to do so by the suborner. The guilt of both the suborned and the suborner must be proved on the trial of the latter. The commission of the crime of perjury is the basic element in the crime of subornation of perjury.'

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: 'The requirement as to the strength of such evidence is variously expressed. Practically all of the opinions require it to be of direct and independent force.' 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 falsity of the oath charged is lacking. All that the evidence tends to show is...