State v. Smallwood
| Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
| Citation | 75 N.C. 104 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. BENJAMIN SMALLWOOD. |
The law imposes upon a juror no obligation to believe a witness who is unimpeached, nor does it give to testimony any artificial force, but leaves it to operate on the mind of each juror, with that force only which it may naturally have upon his mind in producing belief: Therefore, it is error in the court below to charge the jury that they are bound to believe a witness unless he was impeached, either by the testimony of some other witness, or by some fact or circumstance in the case.
The Solicitor is sole judge as to what witnesses shall be introduced on the part of the State, but it does not follow that the jury cannot consider the omission of the Solicitor to introduce a witness, and draw from it any reasonable and natural inference: Therefore, it is error for a Judge, on a trial in the Superior Court, to charge the jury that they cannot at all consider such omission.
( State v. Martin, 2 Ired., 101, Nolan v. McCracken, 1 Dev. & Bat., 594, cited and approved.)
INDICTMENT, for Murder, tried before MOORE, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of BERTIE Superior Court.
The facts, necessary to an understanding of the case, are stated in the opinion of the Court.
There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment thereupon. The prisoner appealed.
Walter Clarke and Busbee & Busbee, for the prisoner .
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State .
Several grounds for a new trial are assigned on behalf of the defendant, a few only of which it is materal to pass on.
1. The defendant requested the Judge to instruct the jury that they had the right to disbelieve the testimony of the witness, Clark.
The Judge did not give this instruction, but told the jury that they were bound to believe a witness unless he was impeached, either by the testimony of another witness, or by some other fact or circumstance in the case.
This instruction can scarcely be distinguished from that which was said to be improper in Nolan v. McCracken, 1 Dev. & Bat., 594, and, in all material respects, is identical with it. The error in the instruction is, that it seems, or at least may be understood to assert, that the law imposes on a juror an obligation to believe a witness, who is unimpeached, or that the testimony of such a witness is entitled to a force greater than its natural tendency to produce belief; whereas the law imposes no such obligation, and gives to testimony no artificial force, but leaves it to operate on the mind of each juror with the force only which it may naturally have upon his mind in producing belief.
The instruction may also be understood to mean that if the general character of a witness is unimpeached, there is an obligation on a juror to believe him, unless the juror can fix on some particular fact or circumstance in the case as a reason for unbelief. Probably a person, accustomed to weigh and balance one against the other, the reasons for accepting or distrusting testimony, is able always to specify the precise ground on which he accepts, doubts or rejects it. But juries are not commonly composed of such persons.
This instruction of the Judge was especially liable to be misunderstood and to mislead the jury in the case on trial, because there were circumstances which the jury ought to have considered in estimating the credit to be given to the witness, and which, so far as appears, were not presented to the jury in that light, so as to explain or qualify the expressions complained of.
1. The witness had quarrelled with the prisoner.
2. The testimony of the witness to the fact that the confession was made, was uncorroborated, when, if true, it could have been corroborated by Bond.
3. The truth of the confession, supposing it to have been made, does not appear to have been corroborated by the finding of the sword and ramrod, where, by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cox v. Hennis Freight Lines, 240
...v. Tinnin, 170 N.C. 84, 86 S.E. 1017; Maynard v. Sears, 157 N.C. 1, 72 S.E. 609; Newby v. Edwards, 153 N.C. 110, 68 S.E. 1062; State v. Smallwood, 75 N.C. 104. When the pleadings and the evidence in the cases now before us are tested by these rules, it is manifest that they support two theo......
-
Ross v. State
...the question has been passed upon, however, the decisions are the other way. State v. Martin, 24 N.C. 101, 2 Ired. Law 101; State v. Smallwood, 75 N.C. 104; State Eaton, 75 Mo. 586; Winsett v. State, 57 Ind. 26; Keller v. State, 123 Ind. 110, 23 N.E. 1138; State v. Cain, 20 W.Va. 679; Morro......
-
State v. Taylor
...but his failure to call a particular witness does not constitute reversible error. State v. Harris, 166 N.C. 243, 80 S.E. 1067; State v. Small-wood, 75 N.C. 104. The defendant strongly argues that the court committed error in that portion of the charge which relates to the evidence of the u......
-
State v. Allen, 6044
... ... 17; [54 Idaho 466] Rex v. Simmonds, 1 Car. & ... P. 84; Rex v. Whitbread, 1 Car. & P. 84 and note; ... Morrow v. State, 57 Miss. 836; State v ... Milosovich, 42 Nev. 263, 175 P. 139; Abrams v ... State, 49 Okla. Crim. 376, 293 P. 1116; State v ... Martin, 24 N.C. 101; State v. Smallwood, 75 ... N.C. 104; State v. Eaton, 75 Mo. 586; Winsett v ... State, 57 Ind. 26.) ... Appellant ... further objected to the introduction of certain clothing of ... the deceased upon the ground that it was not sufficiently ... identified, and further, that the exhibits were not shown ... ...