State v. Stephens

• Decision Date: 06 October 1910
• Citation: 69 S.E. 11,153 N.C. 604
• Parties: STATE v. STEPHENS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 11

(153 N.C. 604)

STATE

v.STEPHENS.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 6, 1910.

1. Criminal Daw (§ 1186^*)—Appeal—Confession of Error.

Confession of error by the Attorney General on an appeal in a criminal case will not generally be held to justify a reversal without an independent examination of the record.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 3218; Dec. Dig. § 1186.*]

2. Homicide (§ 276*)—Self-Defense — Evidence.

In a prosecution for homicide, evidence held to require submission of the plea of self-defense to the jury.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 569; Dec. Dig. § 276.*]

3. Homicide (§ 276*)—Self-Defense—Question for Jury.

Where accused pleads self-defense to justify a homicide, his justification depending on whether from the whole testimony, or from that of any witness, including himself, at the time of the killing, accused was without fault, and then had reasonable ground to believe the attempt of deceased was with a design to take his life or do him great bodily harm, the reasonableness of defendant's apprehensions are for the jury, and not for the court.

[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Homicide, Cent. Dig. § 509; Dec. Dig. § 270.*]

Appeal from Superior Court, New Hanover County; O. H. Allen, Judge.

Joseph Stephens was convicted of murder in the first degree, and he appeals. Reversed, and new trial granted.

See, also, 67 S. E. 327.

Herbert McClammy and John D. Bellamy, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Geo. L. Jones, for the State.

BROWN, J. There are 78 exceptions noted in the voluminous record in the case. The Attorney General, with characteristic candor, which may well be emulated by all public prosecutors, admits that at least seven of the exceptions are material and well taken, and that the prisoner is entitled to a new trial.

While the opinion of the state's attorney has much weight with us, it is our practice to examine the record carefully ourselves before setting aside a conviction for crime, and directing another trial. We find that many exceptions as to material matters of proof were well taken; but, as those errors may not occur on another trial, it is unnecessary to discuss them.

The principal error committed by the judge below was in holding that in no view of the evidence could the prisoner be acquitted upon the ground of self-defense and in excluding pertinent evidence competent to support that plea. The evidence of the prisoner himself is sufficient to entitle him to have that plea submitted to the jury under proper instructions. The prisoner testified substantially that he and deceased had a slight dispute in the morning and met again in the afternoon, that he said good morning to deceased, who, at once, without provocation, cursed prisoner and attacked him, pushed his head violently against corner of shed, hit him four times, three times in eye, causing excruciating pain and blinding him; that prisoner resisted as best he could, but that...