State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 30 June 1877 |
| Citation | 77 N.C. 488 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. RICHARD SMITH. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for Murder, tried at Spring Term, 1877, of MECKLENBURG Superior Court, before Cloud, J.
The case is sufficiently stated by MR. JUSTICE FAIRCLOTH in delivering the opinion of this Court. Verdict of guilty. Judgment. Appeal by defendant.
Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. J. E. Brown, for the defendant .
FAIRCLOTH J.
Homicide is murder unless it be attended with extenuating circumstances which must appear to the satisfaction of the jury, and if the jury are left in doubt on this point it is still murder. If A assault B, giving him a severe blow or otherwise making the provocation great, and B strikes him with a deadly weapon and death ensues, the law in deference to human passion says this is manslaughter.
If the provocation be slight, and it can be collected from the weapon used or any other circumstance that the prisoner intended to kill or do great bodily harm and death follows, it is murder. The violence flows rather from brutal rage than human frailty. Foster's Cr. Law, 291.
In the present case the killing is put beyond controversy, and there is no pretension that it is excusable or justifiable homicide.
The defendant requested His Honor to charge the jury, that if they believed the evidence it was manslaughter, and not murder. This was refused, and a verdict for murder was rendered. The prisoner and deceased were quarreling and using very angry words in the house, the deceased began to pull off his coat, and the prisoner started to draw his knife, being in striking distance of each other. A witness caught prisoner around the body and carried him by force out of the door four or five feet from where the prisoner was standing. Prisoner immediately rushed into the house with a knife drawn above his head and asked where was Sam Ross, (the deceased), who answered, “here,” both swearing. Prisoner ran at deceased, caught him by the collar and cut him with the knife, from which he died. This is the material evidence on this point, and we think the case is embraced in the last proposition stated above from Foster.
The provocation was very slight, the attack was violent with a deadly weapon, taking the deceased at an undue advantage, without time to prepare for his defence or an evenhanded chance. These circumstances show more than sudden passion. They point clearly to the mala mens.
In State v. Ellick, Winst. 56, words passed between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...v. Miller, 112 N.C. 878, 17 S.E. 167; State v. Crane, 95 N.C. 619; State v. Gaskins, 93 N.C. 547; State v. Kennedy, 91 N.C. 572; State v. Smith, 77 N.C. 488; State v. Brodnax, 61 N.C. 41; State v. Sizemore, 52 N.C. 206; State v. Curry, 46 N.C. 280; State v. Tackett, 8 N.C. 210; State v. Yar......
-
State v. Creech
... ... The presumption that the accused was sane ... and responsible for his acts persists until the contrary is ... shown to the satisfaction of the jury. Therefore, if the jury ... are left in doubt as to the sanity or responsibility of the ... accused, the presumption prevails. State v. Smith, ... 77 N.C. 488 ... As a ... dernier ressort the defendant says that while no one of his ... exceptions, standing alone, may be sufficient to work a new ... trial, nevertheless taken in their totality, they make it ... quite clear that the scales of justice were weighted ... ...
-
State v. Clark
...their satisfaction, and if the jury were left in doubt as to the mitigating circumstances it would be a case of murder." In State v. Smith, 77 N. C., at page 488, J., also says: "Homicide is murder unless it be attended with mitigating circumstances, which must appear to the satisfaction of......
-
Welty v. State
...26;State v. Prolow, 98 Minn. 459, 108 N. W. 873;State v. Lautenschlager, 22 Minn. 514;State v. Potts, 100 N. C. 457, 6 S. E. 657;State v. Smith, 77 N. C. 488;State v. Henderson, 74 S. C. 477, 55 S. E. 117;State v. Rochester, 72 S. C. 194, 51 S. E. 685;State v. McDaniel, 68 S. C. 304, 47 S. ......