State v. Speight
| Decision Date | 30 June 1873 |
| Citation | 69 N.C. 72 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. JOHN T. SPEIGHT. |
On an indictment charging the defendant in the first count with stealing, and in the second with receiving stolen goods, he may be found guilty generally, because the offenses are of the same grade and the punishment is the same, and the verdict may be sustained, though on a trial at the preceding term, the jury found the defendant guilty of receiving stolen goods, which verdict the Judge set aside and ordered a new trial.
A witness is not competent to testify as to the general character of another witness, simply because he had known him several years, when the question is asked without explanation, and without the preliminary question, whether he knew the general character of the witness, and the means by which he had acquired the knowledge.
The State v. Williams, 9 Ired. 140, cited and approved.
This was an INDICTMENT consisting of two counts, the first for larceny and the second for receiving stolen goods, to-wit: ten gallons of spirits of turpentine, knowing them to have been stolen. The defendant was first tried on the indictment at October Term, 1872, of the Superior Court of NEW HANOVER county, when his Honor, Russell, J., charged the jury that if they were satisfied that the defendant either stole the turpentine o?? received it, knowing it to have been stolen, then they should say guilty, and no more, whereupon the jury returned a verdict “guilty of receiving stolen goods.” A motion was then made by his counsel that the defendant should be discharged; but his Honor overruled the motion and ordered a new trial.
At January Term, 1873, the defendant was again put upon his trial on the same indictment, and offered to plead “former acquittal,” but his Honor refused to admit the plea, and allowed the plea of “not guilty” to be entered.
On this trial the defendant introduced one P. O'Brian, who testified to material facts for him, and then to strengthen this evidence, he offered to prove by one Vagris that he had known the witness O'Brian several years, and though he had not known the community or any considerable portion thereof to speak of O'Brian's character, yet he had never heard anything against him from any one. His Honor excluded the testimony, and the defendant excepted.
His Honor charged the jury as he had done on the former trial, that if they were satisfied that the defendant either stole the turpentine, or received it, knowing it to have been stolen, they must return a general verdict of guilty and nothing more. Defendant excepted. The jury rendered a general verdict of gullty, upon which a judgment was pronounced, from which the defendant appealed.
M. London, for the defendant .
Attorney General Hargrove, for the State .
The prisoner was charged in two counts, first, for stealing the spirits of turpentine; second, for receiving the spirits of turpentine, knowing the article to be stolen. On the first trial the Judge charged that it was not necessary for the jury to decide whether he stole the article or received it, knowing it to have been stolen. This charge was authorized by State v. Williams, 9 Ired. 151, where it is held it is sufficient if the jury be satisfied that the prisoner is guilty in one of the modes well charged, because as the offenses are of the same grade, and the punishment the same, “the instruction relieved the jury of some trouble, and could work no prejudice to the prisoner.”
The jury, according to our construction of this record, instead of availing themselves of this mode of being relieved from the trouble of investigating the question, went into an investigation, and concluded to find the prisoner guilty only upon the second count. His Honor not taking this view of the verdict,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Dercole
...found guilt (see Regina v. Evans, 7 Cox C.C. 151 (Q.B.); Tobin v. People, 104 Ill. 565; Commonwealth v. Haskins, 128 Mass. 60; cf. State v. Speight, 69 N.C. 72). In other cases verdicts which found only one of two defendants guilty of conspiracy (see United States v. Hamilton, 26 Fed.Cas. N......
-
State v. McEachern
...114 N.C. 879, 19 S.E. 705; State v. Wheeler, 104 N.C. 893, 10 S.E. 491; State v. Gee, 92 N.C. 756; State v. Laxton, 76 N.C. 216; State v. Speight, 69 N.C. 72; State v. Boswell, 13 N.C. 209. See also, State v. Parks, 25 N.C. 296; State v. Stallings, 3 N.C. The Court in State v. Smoak, 213 N.......
-
State v. Malpass
...the same bill of indictment is that it always may be done when the grade of the offenses and the judgments are the same." Also, in State v. Speight, 69 N.C. 72, the court approved the joinder of separate counts, since the grade of the offenses and the punishments were the same. The rule in ......
-
State v. Mills
... ... general reputation of the person in question." ... And ... many other decisions on the subject are to the same effect ... State v. Ussery, 118 N.C. 1177, 24 S.E. 414; ... State v. Gee, 92 N.C. 756; State v ... Speight, 69 N.C. 72; State v. Perkins, 66 N.C ... Recurring ... to the record, we do not think, that the exceptions noted can ... be brought within the principle or meaning of these ... decisions. Sheriff Herring at no time professes to know the ... character of the impeached ... ...