State v. Scott
| Decision Date | 30 June 1844 |
| Citation | 4 Ired. 409,26 N.C. 409,42 Am.Dec. 148 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WILLIAM SCOTT. |
In a case of homicide, where it appeared that the deceased had threatened the prisoner about three weeks before that he would kill him--that they met in the street on a star-light night, when they could see each other-- that the deceased pressed for a fight but the prisoner retreated a short distance--that when the deceased overtook him the prisoner stabbed him with some sharp instrument, which caused his death--and that at the time of this meeting the deceased had no deadly weapon-- Held that this was murder.
In such a case, to mitigate the offence from murder, it must appear, from the previous threats and the circumstances attending the rencontre, that the killing was in self defence.
Where the deceased intended only a fight without weapons, and that known to the prisoner, and the prisoner drew his knife without notice to the deceased, even if they actually engaged in the fight, the stabbing of the deceased by the prisoner would be murder.
The belief that a person designs to kill me will not prevent my killing him from being murder, unless he is making some attempt to execute his design, or, at least, is in an apparent situation to do so, and thereby induces me reasonably to think that he intends to do it immediately.
Where the prisoner prayed for instructions only on the ground, that the deceased did intend to kill him, and not on the ground of a reasonable belief on his part that the deceased did so intend--the court did not err in omitting to instruct the jury on the latter point.
DANIEL, J. dissentiente.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of New Hanover county, at Fall Term, 1843, his Honor Judge BATTLE, presiding.
The prisoner was indicted for the wilful murder of one Madison Johnson. On the trial the following evidence was introduced, to wit:
Alfred Johnson, a brother of the deceased, was examined for the State, and testified, that, on a certain evening, in the month of March last, he went to the house of Hagar Nutt, in the town of Wilmington; that Alfred Smith, Henry Cowan, James Holmes, the ceceased and the prisoner were there; and after remaining a short time left and went off together, Holmes, Smith and Cowan being a little ahead, and the deceased, the prisoner and witness walking on a short distance behind; that it was in the night, with no moon, but a bright star light; that the deceased and the prisoner had some words, but did not quarrel nor seem angry; that the prisoner struck the deceased, upon which he fell and immediately expired; that the prisoner ran off, but returned upon his calling him, and as soon as he saw that the deceased was cut and bleeding he ran off again; that he had never heard the deceased threaten the prisoner, and the parties did not touch each other until the prisoner struck the deceased; that the deceased had no weapon in his hand, and none was found upon his person after his death. Alfred Smith, another witness for the State, testified that he was at Hagar Nutt's at the time spoken of by the first witness, and went off in company with the others; that the deceased did not start with them, but came through a gate on the premises and called for the prisoner, who at first did not answer, but upon a second call asked the deceased what he wanted, to which he replied by calling him a damned rascal; that the prisoner then asked him what was the matter, and told him to come up and reason the matter before the gentlemen, to which the deceased replied that the gentlemen had nothing to do with this business; that he walked on a little ahead, and looking back, saw the deceased and prisoner moving backwards and forwards as if they were trying to get together, but Alfred Johnson was between them, keeping them apart; that he heard no angry words, nor saw nor heard any scuffle, but heard the prisoner tell the deceased that he wished to have nothing to do with him; and that he did not see the prisoner strike any blow, but saw him running off. Dr. Dickson was then called, and testified for the State, that the wound was inflicted by a long, narrow, sharp instrument, and from its appearance must have been instantly fatal. For the prisoner, Henry Cowan, James Holmes, Mr. Grant, and Charlotte Mitchell, were examined. Henry Cowan swore that he left Hagar Nutt's in company with the others; that he walked on before and heard the prisoner and the deceased quarrelling, and saw Alfred Johnson trying to prevent a fight; that prisoner backed, and the deceased followed him eight or ten steps up the hill; that he saw the prisoner running off; that he thought the prisoner was afraid of the deceased from his giving back. James Holmes testified, that he left Hagar Nutt's with the others; that the prisoner left the house singing, and the deceased came afterwards calling for the prisoner; that the prisoner asked what he wanted, to which the deceased replied that he would soon let him know; that he saw the prisoner and the deceased moving backwards and forwards as if they wanted to fight, but Alfred Johnson kept them apart; that he saw the deceased stoop down as if he intended to pick up something, and that soon afterwards he saw prisoner running, and asked him what was the matter, to which prisoner replied, ““nothing,” and witness said to him that he had done something, or he would not run. Mr. Grant stated, that about three weeks before this transaction, he saw the prisoner and the deceased have a fight, when the deceased struck the prisoner on the head with a brick-bat, and that the prisoner seemed to wish to avoid the fight; that he heard the deceased say he would kill the prisoner, if there were no other negro left in the State, and that he informed the prisoner of the threat. Charlotte Mitchell swore, that about a fortnight before the killing, the deceased came to her house in company with Alfred Johnson, his brother, and seemed very anxious to see the prisoner, who boarded with her; that the deceased found the prisoner's cap and tore it up, saying that he would serve the prisoner in the same way if he could find him; and that he intended to kill him at the risk of his life; that Alfred Johnson heard this, and told his brother that they could find the prisoner another time; that she also heard the deceased threaten to kill the prisoner the Friday night before his death; that the deceased had been on good terms with a yellow girl named Maria Mitchell, but had had a falling out with her, and she had come to stay at witness's house where the prisoner was boarding. She testified also that the prisoner was rather a stouter man than the deceased, both being young men. Mr. Elfe stated, that he thought that the prisoner and deceased were about the same size. The prisoner, the deceased and all the witnesses except Messrs. Grant and Elfe were colored persons. Upon this case, the prisoner's counsel insisted that the killing was in self-defence, or at most upon a legal provocation, and requested the court to instruct the jury, that if they believed that the deceased had threatened to take the prisoner's life, which was known to the prisoner, and that the prisoner gave back and the deceased followed him, (as stated by the witness Cowan,) then the killing was either excusable homicide in self-defence, or, at most, a case of manslaughter. The court instructed the jury, that, if Alfred Johnson's account of the transaction were the correct one, it was undoubtedly a case of murder; but if they did not believe his account to be true, then if they found from the evidence of the threats having been used by the deceased, taken in connection with the testimony given by the witnesses Smith, Cowan and Holmes, or either of them, that the deceased was assailing the prisoner in such a manner that he had no means of saving his life or his body from some great hurt, but by killing the deceased, he had a right to do so, and it would be a case of excusable homicide in self defence; that if they did not take that view of the case, but found that the parties were engaged in a scuffle, during which the prisoner killed the deceased, it was a case of manslaughter; but that if the parties were only trying to get together, and no blows had passed, or if the prisoner had given back and the deceased had followed him as stated by Cowan, but the deceased had stricken no blow, and had no weapon in his hand or about him, and the prisoner struck him with a weapon likely to produce death, then the killing was murder. The jury found the prisoner guilty of murder, upon which he moved for a new trial upon the ground of misdirection. The motion was overruled and sentence of death pronounced, from which the prisoner appealed.
Attorney General for the State .
No counsel in this court for the defendant.
The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v. Gilbert
...the benefit of his view of the circumstances at the time? In Nash's Case, Judge Ashe said: "The court did not give the prisoner, in Scott's Case, 26 N.C. 409, , the of the principle, for the reason that no such instruction had been asked in the court below; the judge concluding that the pri......
-
State v. Byrd
...is entirely circumstantial, and its attendant circumstances unknown. State v. Tackett, 8 N. C. 210; State v. Tilly, 25 N. C. 424; State v. Scott, 26 N. C. 409; State v. Barfield, 30 N. C. 344; Bottoms y. Kent, 48 N. C. 154; State v. Hogue, 51 N. C. 381; State v. Floyd, supra; State v. Chavi......
-
State v. Tolla
...v. State, 14 Tex. App. 1; West v. State, 18 Tex. App. 644; Myers v. State, 33 Tex. 525; Evans v. State, 44 Miss. 762; State v. Scott, 26 N. C. 409, 42 Am. Dec. 148. In the state of New York, where it is permissible to show the reputation of the assailant who was killed for quarrelsomeness a......
-
State v. Johnson
...firmness. We think that the foregoing principle has been clearly stated and adopted by this court in several cases." In State v. Scott, 26 N. C. 409, 42 Am. Dec. 148, this court says: "In consultation it occurred to us at one time, that the case might properly have been left to the jury fav......