State v. Stamey, 2.
| Decision Date | 26 February 1936 |
| Docket Number | No. 2.,2. |
| Citation | 183 S.E. 736,309 N.C. 581 |
| Parties | STATE . v. STAMEY et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Ernest B. Stamcy and Clyde Woods were convicted of murder in the second degree, and they bring certiorari.
Petition dismissed.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and Harry McMuIlan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Marvin L. Ritch, of Charlotte, for defendants.
The petitioners were tried with Robert Bell at the April term, 1933, Macon superior court, upon an indictment charging them, in one count, with conspiracy to murder George Dryman, and, in a second count, with the murder of the said George Dryman.
Robert Bell entered a plea of former jeopardy and offered to show that at the same term of court he had been tried and acquitted on a bill charging him and his codefendants, in one count, with conspiracy to burglarize the home of George Dryman, and, in a second count, with burglariously robbing said home. The courtruled that this plea was not good and declined to hear his evidence offered in support thereof. On appeal, the ruling of the trial court was held for error, as the charge of murder grew out of the burglary. State v. Bell, 205 N.C. 225, 171 S.E. 50.
Following the decision in Bell's Case, the petitioners, who did not appeal from the judgments entered against them, were thought to be entitled to similar treatment. Hence the application for certiorari in the nature of a writ of error was allowed on authority of State v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522, and State v. Green, 85 N.C. 600.
However, it is shown by the record now before us that the petitioners, Stamey and Woods, did not properly enter pleas of former jeopardy or offer evidence to support such pleas or preserve their rights to have the question presented as their codefendant Bell did. State v. Ellsworth, 131 N.C. 773, 42 S.E. 699, 92 Am.St.Rep. 790; State v. King, 195 N.C. 621, 143 S.E. 140. Unlike Bell, they were convicted on the burglary charge. Their defense, on the second trial, was an alibi, and they offered many witnesses to show that they were elsewhere at the time the murder is alleged to have been committed. State v. Steen, 185 N.C. 768, 117 S.E. 793.
Thus it appears from the return to the certiorari that the writ was improvidently granted. It will be dismissed.
Petition dismissed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Moore
...of the court, and seeks to have the case reviewed on "certiorari in the nature of a writ of error" under authority of State v. Stamey, 209 N.C. 581, 183 S.E. 736, 737; State v. Tripp, 168 N.C. 150, 83 S.E. 630; State v. Lawrence, 81 N.C. 522; State v. Green, 85 N.C. 600; State v. Mc-Gimsey,......
-
State v. Coffey
...know what became of him." The defense interposed by the prisoner was, that he was elsewhere at the time of the homicide. State v. Stamey, 209 N.C. 581, 183 S.E. 736. The jury rejected his alibi. State v. Jeffreys, 192 N.C. 318, 135 S.E. 32; State v. Jaynes, 78 N.C. 504. On his appeal, the d......
-
Brady v. Fulghum
... ... We now reject the doctrine and end its application in this state ... Generally, contracts entered into by unlicensed construction contractors, in violation of a statute passed for the protection of ... ...
-
State v. Stamey
...183 S.E. 736 209 N.C. 581 STATE v. STAMEY et al. No. 2.Supreme Court of North CarolinaFebruary 26, Ernest B. Stamey and Clyde Woods were convicted of murder in the second degree, and they bring certiorari. Petition dismissed. Where defendants, convicted in burglary prosecution, did not ente......