State v. Suddreth
| Decision Date | 13 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 294 |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 924,230 N.C. 239 |
| Parties | STATE v. SUDDRETH. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Horry Crisp, Jr.
The defendant and the deceased were brothers-in-law, having married sisters. They lived within one-half mile of each other, and it is apparent from the record that there had been some bad feeling between the two families because the wife of the defendant had been talking about the deceased as a result of some information she had received in a letter.
The State's evidence tends to show that on 23 October, 1948 the deceased and his wife left home together about 5:00 p m., for the purpose of contacting a colored man on some business matter. They had to go by the home of the defendant on their way to see the colored man. When they reached to home of the defendant, the wife of the deceased expressed a desire to see the letter her sister had received which contained the uncomplimentary statements about the deceased. The wife of the defendant was not at home, but the defendant sent one of his children for her. She came home and got the letter; and the defendant's wife, and the deceased and his wife were standing in front of the house in the public road, and the wife of the defendant was reading the letter when 'all of a sudden she turned and started up the road and Horry glanced up and took about two steps backward and the gun fired. ' The defendant fired the gun from his porch and between 100 and 150 shot took effect in the back of the deceased. The deceased died before reaching the hospital in Lenoir, which was about four or five miles from the home of the defendant.
According to the State's evidence, the deceased was armed with a pistol but made no attempt to use it. Neither did he threaten the defendant's wife or make any statement to the defendant about killing him or being killed.
The defendant testified that on the day of the killing, the deceased had been by his house between one and two o'clock and had shot at some of his chickens; that when he came back around five o'clock the deceased had been drinking and they had some words and he begged him to leave; that the deceased said 'Tom I came here to kill or be killed; I had just as soon die now as any other time and had just as soon die in the electric chair as any other place'; that he was on his porch leaning against the door, while his wife and the deceased and his wife were in the road talking and looking at the letter.
The bridge was across the road from the defendant's house and there was a rock wall about five and a half feet below the bridge.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter and from the judgment imposed, the defendant appeals, assigning error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen. and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.
W. H. Strickland and Max C. Wilson, both of Lenoir, for defendant.
After verdict and before judgment was imposed, the defendant moved to set aside the verdict because Elijah Bentley, one of the jurors, had permitted Mrs. Mabel Crisp Whisnant, sister of the deceased, Horry Crisp, Jr., to ride in his car while the case was pending. The Court made a thorough investigation of the matter and found as a fact that the juror did permit Mrs. Whisnant to ride in the back seat of his car with her husband, for a distance of some four miles on the afternoon of Thursday, 2 December, 1948, while the case was in progress; that Carl Gilbert sat on the front seat of the car with the juror, who drove the car, and that the case was not discussed during the time Mrs. Whisnant and her husband were in the car. The juror also stated upon oath that he did not know Mrs. Whisnant was a sister of the dead man.
The Court, being of the opinion that the result of the case had not been affected by the association alleged and shown, declined to set aside the verdict either as a matter of law or in its discretion. The defendant excepted.
It is provided by statute, G.S. s 9-14, that the judge 'shall decide all questions as to the competency of jurors,' and his rulings thereon are final and 'not subject to review on appeal unless accompanied by some imputed error of law. ' State v. DeGraffenreid, 224 N.C. 517, 31 S.E.2d 523, 524; State v. Hill, 225 N.C. 74, 33 S.E.2d 470; State v. Davenport, 227 N.C. 475, 42 S.E.2d 686. This exception presents no reviewable question of law and will not be sustained
The Court charged the jury that 'there is a presumption where a killing is done with a deadly weapon, that it is done with malice, and * * * an unlawful killing with malice is murder in the second degree. ' And the Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial