State v. Sandlin
| Citation | 156 N.C. 624,72 S.E. 203 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Decision Date | 04 October 1911 |
| Parties | STATE v. SANDLIN. |
1. Jury (§ 70*)—Drawing Jurors— Special Venire.
Jurors drawn for service during the second week of a term, as authorized by Laws 1909, c. 342, relating to juries in New Hanover county, and providing that jurors so drawn shall be regular jurors and subject only to the challenges allowed by law to regular jurors, were properly tendered to sit in a capital case to complete the panel, on exhaustion of the panel of regular jurors drawn for the first week of the term.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Jury, Dec. Dig. § 70.*]
2. Criminal Law (§ 773*)—Issues—Insanity—Submission.
Where, in a prosecution for homicide, the trial judge at the instance of the prisoner allowed an amendment of his plea of not guilty so as to allege insanity, it was not error to submit a double issue as to insanity and guilt.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Dec. Dig. § 773.*]
3. Criminal Law (§ 1056*)—Objections-Waiver.
Error, if any, in submitting to the jury the double issue of not guilty and insanity, was waived where no exception was taken thereto.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2668-2670; Dec. Dig. § 1056.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; Cline, Judge.
L. M. Sandlin was convicted of murder, and he appeals. Affirmed.
L. Clayton Grant, for appellant
T. W.Bickett, Atty. Gen., and G. L. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prisoner was convicted of murder in the first degree in killing his wife. The evidence is that the wife had left her husband after a quarrel and moved to another house where she kept boarders. On the day of the homicide the prisoner went to his wife's house. After some conversation, he commenced beating his wife. She screamed and ran from the dining room into the parlor. The defendant followed, beating her. She ran from the parlor into the hall, and the prisoner still followed her. When she got into the hall, the prisoner pulled out his pistol and shot her three times, twice in the back and once in the neck. The doctor testified that either shot would have killed her. She fell, and the prisoner stepped over the body and out into the porch and shot himself in the head but not seriously. One Moss, who occupied an adjoining room, said to him, "Throw that pistol down." He threw it down on the porch, and Moss picked it up. The prisoner then said, "I killed her, and I intended to kill her." The coroner, who was also a physician, testified as to the pistol shots, and on cross-examination testified that he did not consider the prisoner at all insane. The prisoner offered no testimony, asked for no special instructions, and took no exceptions to the charge.
The prisoner in his brief relies upon the second assignment of error. The trial began on Saturday of the first week of the term. The regular panel of that week was exhausted. When the court met again on Monday, the regular jurors who had been drawn, for service during the second week, by virtue of a special act for New Hanover (chapter 342, Laws 1909), were called. The first juror who was tendered was challenged on the ground that this act did not apply to capital cases, but that a special venire should have been drawn under Rev. §§ 1973, 1974. The act in question provides that jurors so drawn "shall be regular jurors and subject only to the challenges now allowed by law to regular jurors." This also disposes of the assignments of error 3, 4, 6, and 7, which were because the judge held that such jurors were regular jurors and not subject to challenge as talesmen.
The other assignments of error which were not abandoned need not be mentioned, except the fifteenth, which was because, insanity at the trial being insisted on, the judge at the instance of the prisoner allowed his plea to be amended to allege...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cooper, 89
...... Page 332 . committed the act, that he was not responsible for the reason that he was insane.' Cf. State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624, 626, 72 S.E. 203, 204 (1911). . Nall is cited in State v. Johnson, 256 N.C. 449, 452, 124 S.E.2d 126, 128 (1962), but solely with reference to rulings on evidence. . [286 N.C. 591] There is no reason why a defendant may not enter simultaneously a ......
-
State v. Sullivan
...78 Am.Dec. 272; State v. Vann, 84 N.C. 722; State v. Haywood, 94 N.C. 847; State v. Khoury, 149 N.C. 454, 62 S.E. 638; State v. Sandlin, 156 N.C. 624, 72 S.E. 203; State v Godwin, 216 N.C. 49, 3 S.E.2d 347, the challenge may not be sustained on the facts of this record. The General Assembly......
-
State v. Sullivan
...s 122-84 and G.S. s 122-83, this Court has had the subject under consideration in two cases, State v. Khoury, 1908, supra, and State v. Sandlin, 1911, supra. It may noted, however, that the statute of 1899 is not referred to in either of these cases. In the Khoury case, while it was held th......
-
Pettit v. Atl. Coast Line R. Co
......Q. At what time? A. Between 11 and 12. Q. Did you see Joe Pettit that day? A. Once; I saw him on the corner of the car. Q. State what position be occupied on the car? A. He was standing on the steps and holding to the lower round. Q. What kind of a car? A. Box car. Q. In ......