State v. Truesdale

• Decision Date: 19 December 1899
• Citation: 34 S.E. 646,125 N.C. 696
• Parties: STATE v. TRUESDALE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

34 S.E. 646

125 N.C. 696

STATE v. TRUESDALE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 19, 1899

Appeal from superior court, Mecklenburg county; McNeill, Judge.

Will Truesdale was convicted of murder, and appeals. Reversed.

Chase Brenizer, for appellant.

Shepherd & Busbee and the Attorney General, for the State.

FURCHES J.

This is an indictment for murder, tried in the criminal court of Mecklenburg county, in which the jury returned the following verdict: "The jury say for their verdict, upon oath that the said Will Truesdale is guilty of the felony and murder in manner and form as charged in the bill of indictment." Upon this verdict the prisoner was sentenced to be hanged, from which judgment he appealed to the superior court of said county. The judge of the superior court affirmed the judgment of the criminal court, and the prisoner appealed to this court.

There does not appear to have been an exception taken during the whole trial. But the prisoner asked for the following instructions: "(1) From the testimony in the case the jury cannot convict the prisoner of murder in the first degree. (2) At most the jury can only convict of murder in the second degree. (3) There is no evidence of deliberation or premeditation in this case." The court refused to give either of these instructions, and the prisoner excepted. The refusal of the court to give these prayers was made the basis of the argument before us. It was contended in this argument that there was not sufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation to authorize the court to submit the issue of murder in the first degree to the jury and Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N.C. 451; Spruill v. Insurance Co., 120 N.C. 141, 27 S.E. 39; State v Gragg, 122 N.C. 1082, 30 S.E. 306; State v Rhyne, 124 N.C. 847, 33 S.E. 128; State v. Norwood, 115 N.C. 789, 20 S.E. 712; State v. McCormac, 116 N.C. 1033, 21 S.E. 693; and State v. Thomas, 118 N.C. 1118, 24 S.E. 431,--were cited to sustain this contention; but, in our opinion, none of these cases sustain it. Without quoting the evidence in this case, it discloses these facts: That the deceased was pregnant at the time of her death. That on the day before she was killed she had the prisoner arrested upon a charge of bastardy, as being the father of the child. That at the trial of the bastardy case the prisoner and the deceased came to terms of compromise, when the prisoner agreed to pay her $10 in cash, and to procure a place for her to stay in Charlotte. That on the evening after the trial the prisoner and the deceased went to the house of Emma Leopard (a colored woman), where the prisoner procured lodgings for the deceased for the night. That he left this place about dark, telling the deceased that he would return, and bring her supper. That he returned about 9 o'clock, and asked the deceased to take a walk with him. The deceased said that she had not had any supper, when the prisoner remarked that he would get her supper up street; that she was a stranger there, and he wanted to show her the town. That they left together, and this was the last time she was seen alive, so far as the evidence discloses. That on the next day she was found, some three-fourths of a mile from the house of Emma Leopard, in the woods, dead. That from a severe wound on the left side of the head, crushing the skull, she died. That from this, and from other wounds, and from signs of a scuffle, it was apparent that she had been murdered. This wound on the head, the doctor testified, had evidently been made by some heavy substance with square corners. That it rained hard that night, and the prisoner returned, and went to the house of Rosa Marks (another colored woman), in Charlotte, about 11 o'clock that night, in a wet condition, where he stayed until morning. That he was asked by several parties where the deceased (Janie Brown) was, to which he made different and contradictory statements. To some of the parties he said that she was afraid to stay in Charlotte, and had gone to Asheville; to others he said he had sent her to Asheville; and to others he said that a big black man had taken her from him. He said he knew the man, but refused to tell who he was, as he did not wish to get him into trouble. When arrested the next day, the prisoner was found to be in possession of a pocketbook which Janie had that night when she left Emma's house with the prisoner, containing at that time four dollars in silver, but empty when found in the prisoner's possession. The prisoner made other contradictory statements about the matter. There were splotches on his shirt that resembled blood, and which the doctor thought were blood, though they had been washed, and he would not give a positive opinion as to whether they were blood or not. Without stating more, we are of the opinion that this evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and they have said that the prisoner was the murderer. This being so, and there being no exception to the evidence or charge of the court, it must be held that the prisoner is the murderer; and, taking it as a fact found that the prisoner killed the deceased, it seems to us that there is an abundance of evidence going to show that he did it with premeditation. If he did the killing, it must have been the tragic ending of a murderous conception of the prisoner's mind, entered upon at...