State v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 28 February 1883 |
| Citation | 88 N.C. 694 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. WINDAL TAYLOR. |
INDICTMENT for larceny tried at Spring Term, 1882, of LENOIR Superior Court, before Gilmer, J.
The defendant was charged with stealing a horse, the property of one Barfield.
The evidence on the part of the state tended to show that a cart and horse, the property of the prosecutor, were stolen on the night of the 14th of December, 1880, and the cart (one wheel of which made a peculiar track) was tracked from Lenoir county, some twenty-five miles, to Wilcox's Mill, in the county of Jones. The tracks were last seen near a bridge at that place. One of the witnesses for the state testified that on the next night, by the light of the moon, which was shining very brightly, he saw the defendant riding the horse of the prosecutor near the bridge. He was riding in a walk when he first saw him, but from the appearance of the horse's tracks he seemed to have been put in a rapid run near the bridge. Both the defendant and the horse were well known to the witness.
With the view of corroborating this witness, the state introduced one Robert Harper, and offered to show by him that on the night of the 14th of December, on which the horse was stolen, he and one Sparrow were on their way to Goldsboro, and that between eleven and one o'clock he met three persons and a horse and cart; that one was on the horse's back and the other two were in the cart, riding on sacks filled with something; that he did not know any of the three, but after they passed a minute or two he took one of the parties to be the defendant; that he knew the defendant was in the habit of wearing a broad-brim hat; that he thought of the hat the defendant was in the habit of wearing after they had passed him, and that was the only thing which caused him to think of the defendant, and that he did not notice the shape of the man.
The state also offered testimony to show that the prosecutor's cart was found in the woods about three hundred yards from the point in the road where the tracks were lost, and when found had been taken to pieces--the body in one place, the wheels in another, and the axletree hidden under a tree in another place; and near the same place were found papers torn and thrown on the ground that appeared to be wrappers of packages of soda and starch.
The state then offered to show by one Quin, that, on the same night the horse was stolen, he lost, by theft, from his store, which was in the same neighborhood in which the prosecutor resided and had been broken into, soda and starch, which were wrapped in paper corresponding with the description of the packages found near the missing cart.
The defendant, in his behalf, introduced the said Harper, who had been examined by the state, who testified to a conversation which he stated he had with said Quin about the identification of the horse, which Quin had testified had not occurred. The state, on the cross-examination of this witness, exhibited to him his written examination taken by the justice of the peace, and proposed to ask the witness if he did not swear therein that he took one of the persons he met in the cart, as aforesaid, to be the defendant by his shape and his looks. This was objected to, but allowed. The witness swore that he made no such statement, and the state in reply offered to show by the justice of the peace that the witness, Harper, signed the said statement as produced, and that the same was read over to him, and that said Harper, on such examination before him, did swear that he took the person in the cart to be the defendant by his shape and his looks, as recorded in said statement, and those were his very words. The defendant objected to this evidence. It was admitted by the court, and the defendant excepted. There was a verdict of guilty, and judgment against the defendant, from which he appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
Messrs. Strong & Smedes, for defendant .
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Tilley
...v. Cohoon, 206 N.C. 388, 174 S.E. 91; State v. Melvin, 194 N.C. 394, 139 S.E. 762; State v. Mace, 118 N.C. 1244, 24 S.E. 798; State v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 694 (overruling State v. Norris, 2. A party makes a witness his own within the rule forbidding impeachment by putting him on the witness sta......
-
State v. Smith
...directly to statements made by the witness on other occasions. State v. Noland (204 N.C. 329, 168 S.E. 412 (1933)), supra; State v. Taylor (88 N.C. 694 (1883)), supra. But the trial judge offends the rule that a witness may not be impeached by the party calling him and so commits error if h......
-
State v. Fields
...prohibited the state from discrediting its own witness. See, e.g., State v. Anderson, 283 N.C. 218, 195 S.E.2d 561 (1973); State v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 694 (1883). Even if defendant's argument were meritorious and this Court were to order a new trial, it would be both feasible and just to condu......
-
State v. Greenlee
...statements or any evidence of the witness's bad character. E.g., State v. Cope, 309 N.C. 47, 305 S.E.2d 676 (1983); State v. Taylor, 88 N.C. 694 (1883); State v. Gilliam, 71 N.C.App. 83, 321 S.E.2d 553 (1984); 1 H. Brandis, N.C. Evidence § 40 (2d rev. ed. 1982) (but forcefully criticizing t......