State v. Vines
| Decision Date | 31 October 1885 |
| Citation | 53 Am.Rep. 466,93 N.C. 493 |
| Parties | STATE v. JAMES VINES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The prisoner was tried for the murder of one Samuel Joyner, at Spring Term, 1885, of GREENE Superior Court before Gudger, Judge.
There was a verdict against the prisoner for manslaughter, and judgment being pronounced thereon, he appealed.
The part of the case settled upon appeal necessary to a proper understanding of the opinion of the Court, is as follows:
“The only evidence adduced on the trial, was the testimony of one Freeman Streeter, sworn and introduced as a State's witness. He testified that he, with several other men, was at the prisoner's house on the night of the homicide, and saw the killing of Joyner, the deceased; that it was done by a pistol shot fired by the prisoner; that the deceased lived but a few seconds after the firing.
That they were expecting to have a ‘festival’ at the prisoner's house that night, at which the prisoner was to furnish the refreshments, and the witness was one of the invited guests. Witness did not know of any ill feeling (‘madness,’ as he expressed it) among any of the parties present. That some girls were expected, but it was raining and they did not come. That the killing of the deceased was about one or two o'clock at night; the weapon which caused his death being a thirty-two calibre pistol with several barrels. That he (witness) saw the prisoner load every barrel of the pistol on the night of the homicide, and before the deceased was shot. That one John Hines, who was present, also had a pistol. That the prisoner, soon after loading his pistol, discharged one barrel of it, shooting out of the door, and that John Hines also fired his out of doors. The deceased had no pistol. John Hines and James Vines (the prisoner) got to ‘fooling’ with sticks. Then they put their sticks down, and John Hines caught up his pistol from the chimney piece, and told prisoner that if he fooled with him, he would blow his brains out. Prisoner then got his pistol from a shelf and told John Hines if he could smoke more than he (prisoner) could, to smoke away. Witness said ‘Jim, you and John put down your pistols and quit fooling with them, you might shoot some person.'
Prisoner said he was not going to shoot any one.
At this time the deceased was sitting on a bed in the prisoner's house. Then, while both Hines and Vines, (the prisoner), were standing face to face pointing their pistols at each other, Hines fell down behind the deceased on the bed and said to the prisoner, “shoot and be damned,” and then the prisoner's pistol fired. The shot struck Joyner, the deceased. John Hines then ran into the back room, and the deceased “made for” the back door and commenced to stagger, and fell against the house. The prisoner, who was at that time standing in the floor, caught the deceased and held him up, then turned him loose and the deceased fell to the floor.
Cross-examined: the witness testified that he and the deceased were invited to the prisoner's house on the night of the homicide.
That he saw no liquor there. That as the deceased fell, the prisoner said, “Boys, I have shot him, but it was accident.” Prisoner's counsel offered to ask the witness if he regarded the shooting as accidental? Objected to by the Solicitor for the State; objection sustained, and prisoner excepted.”
The Solicitor for the State, in his address to the jury, while expressing his belief that in strict law the offence was murder, claimed only a verdict for manslaughter.
His Honor instructed the jury that if they “believed the testimony of the witness, the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter.”
The Attorney General, for the State .
Mr. Hugh F. Murray, for the prisoner .
MERRIMON, J., (after stating the facts).
The Court instructed the jury, that if they should believe the evidence, the prisoner was guilty of manslaughter. They rendered a verdict of guilty of that offence, and it must be taken that they believed the evidence; and, if they did, it is manifest that the prisoner was at least guilty of manslaughter. If it be granted that he and Hines were in jest and rough sport--and this is by no means certain--he was using a dangerous weapon--a loaded pistol, knowing that it was loaded--not only incautiously, but in a most reckless and unlawful manner. He had it pointed at Hines, who fell behind the deceased, saying as he did so, “shoot and be damned,” when at once he fired the fatal shot. If he did not intend to kill Hines, and the discharge of the pistol was unintentional, still the killing was manslaughter, because in any view of his conduct, he used the dangerous weapon carelessly, recklessly and unlawfully. It is clear, that where one engaged in an unlawful or dangerous sport, kills another by accident it is manslaughter. Arch. Cr. Pl., 397; Fost. Cr. Law, 259, 260, 261; 1 Hale Pl. Cr., 472, 473; Ros. Cr. Ev., 687, 688; State v. Shirley, 64 N. C., 610; State v. Roan, 2 Dev., 58. This, however, would not be so, if the sport were lawful and not dangerous--in such case it would be no more than homicide by misadventure. There is a variety of cases in which a person, causing the death of another, without intending to inflict injury, is criminally responsible, though not under the circumstances, chargeable with murder. In such cases, the test of responsibility depends upon whether the conduct of the party accused, was unlawful,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ballard v. Ballard
... ... strike, and reserved exceptions to adverse rulings thereon ... The plaintiff was also permitted to state that she knew the ... handwritings of J. T. Ballard and W. L. Hensley, and that the ... signature on the certificate of acknowledgment purporting ... 357; Minton v. Ferguson, 208 ... N.C. 541, 181 S.E ... [55 S.E.2d 321] ... 553; ... Wolf v. Arthur, supra; State v. Vines, 93 N.C. 493, ... 53 Am.Rep. 466 ... [230 ... N.C. 635] The admission of this evidence constituted ... prejudicial error ... ...
-
State v. Dickens
... ... where as an inference of law the uncontradicted evidence, if ... accepted as true, establishes the defendant's guilt, it ... is permissible for the court to instruct the jury to return a ... verdict of guilty if they find the evidence to be true beyond ... a reasonable doubt. State v. Vines, 93 N.C. 493, 53 Am.Rep ... 466; State v. Winchester, 113 N.C. [641], 642, 18 ... S.E. 657; State v. Riley, 113 N.C. 648, 18 S.E. 168; ... State v. Woolard, 119 N.C. 779, 25 S.E. 719." ... We do ... not think the charge of the court upon all the evidence ... presented in ... ...
-
State v. Hovis
...pointing it at another, and kills the other by accident, he would be guilty of an unlawful homicide or manslaughter. G.S. § 14-34; State v. Vines, 93 N.C. 493; State v. Trollinger, 162 N.C. 618, 77 S.E. 957; State v. Limerick, 146 N.C. 649, 61 S.E. Involuntary manslaughter has been defined ......
-
State v. Kluckhohn, 442
...pointing it at another, and kills the other by accident, he would be guilty of an unlawful homicide or manslaughter. G.S. § 14-34; State v. Vines, 93 N.C. 493; State v. Trollinger, 162 N.C. 618, 77 S.E. 957; State v. Limerick, 146 N.C. 649, 61 S.E. 568.' State v. Hovis, 233 N.C. 359, 64 S.E......