State v. Sam
| Decision Date | 31 December 1860 |
| Citation | 8 Jones 150,53 N.C. 150 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. SAM (a slave.) |
In order to show that a witness in a cause was excited at the horrible crime alleged against a slave, and was, therefore, not fully to be relied on, it was Held competent to ask him, on cross-examination, whether he had not taken up and whipped other negroes.
In order to weaken the force of a witness' evidence on cross-examination, it was Held competent to show his temper and feeling towards the cause, independently of any prejudice or ill-will towards the accused, personally.
THIS was an indictment for MURDER, tried before HOWARD, J., at the last Superior Court of Bertie county.
The prisoner was indicted and put on trial with two others, Noah and Perry, for the murder of one George Askew, by burning the house in which he was asleep. There was a count charging the death to have been produced by a blow from a stick.
On the trial, one Joseph B. Ruffin gave testimony as to the confessions of Sam. Upon his cross-examination, Ruffin was asked by the prisoner's counsel, “if he had not taken up and whipped other negroes in the neighborhood.” This question was objected to by the counsel for the State.
The Court asked, “what is the purpose of the question.”
Defendant's counsel answered, “to show that he has been very active about the matter.”
The Court rejoined, “if he has, it is nothing to his discredit.”
The testimony was ruled out, and the prisoner's counsel excepted.
There were many other exceptions on the trial, but as this is the only one treated of by this Court, it is not deemed proper to set them out. A nolle prosequi was entered as to Noah. Perry was acquitted, and a verdict of guilty as to Sam, who, upon judgment being given against him, appealed.
Attorney General, for the State .
Winston, Jr., for the defendant .
Any evidence is competent, which tends to show the feeling or bias of a witness in respect to the party or the cause; for the jury ought to be put in possession of every fact which will enable them to form a proper estimate of the witness; not merely in reference to his honesty, but to the degree of reliance that can be placed on his accuracy, and to what extent allowance should be made for the probability of misapprehension, or the danger that the witness had received wrong impressions, owing to an excited state of feeling. Every one, no matter how honest he may be, is more apt to fall into error after he has “taken sides” in feeling or in action, than while he remained neutral. On this account, every witness was required by the common law to give his testimony in the presence of the jury, and to be subject to cross-examination; so that they could look at him; note his demeanor, and have every opportunity of testing whether he was under the influence of feeling, and thus be able to form an opinion how far he was to be relied on. Indeed, the chief excellence of a trial by jury, consists in the fact, that being judges of human nature, when put in possession of all the circumstances that may, or are calculated to influence the feelings of a witness, or to show a bias either for or against a party, or in reference to the one side or the other of the case, which is on trial, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hart
...that jurors are to consider and weigh evidence of this character in determining the credibility of the witness to whom it relates. State v. Sam, 53 N.C. 150. To enable litigants to present such evidence to jurors, the law establishes and enforces these rules: 1. A party to an action or proc......
-
Ex parte State
...to the parties, the feeling of a witness in respect to the case which is being tried may be brought out to affect his credibility. State v. Sam, 53 N.C. 150; v. Third Ave. R. Co., 1 Misc.Rep. 158, 20 N.Y.Supp. 633. The application of this principle has found illustration in this state. In P......
-
State v. Miller
...against the defendant, and the trial court committed prejudicial error in excluding it in this case. State v. Hart, supra; State v. Sam, 53 N.C. 150. The trial court refused to permit defendant to testify concerning information he had received prior to the shooting as to robberies of gambli......
-
State v. Kirk, 437
...that jurors are to consider and weigh evidence of this character in determining the credibility of the witness to whom it relates. State v. Sam, 53 N.C. 150.' For error in the charge it is ordered that there be New trial. ...