State v. Walker
| Decision Date | 09 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | (No. 466.) |
| Citation | 92 S.E. 327 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. WALKER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Caldwell County; Ferguson, Judge.
Charles Walker was convicted of murder, and appeals. No error.
M. N. Harshaw, of Lenoir, and J. H. Burke, of Taylorsville, for appellant.
The Attorney General and R. H. Sykes, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The only question presented upon this appeal is to the sufficiency of the proof that the homicide of which the de fendant was convicted was premeditated, and whether the evidence is sufficient to show that degree of deliberation and premeditation necessary to constitute murder in the first degree. All the evidence tends to prove that the prisoner and the deceased, Florence Sutphin, were cousins and sweethearts; that at one time they had been engaged to be married, and had been a great deal in each other's company for some months preceding the homicide. A number of letters are in evidence, from one of which it appears that a few days before the homicide the deceased wrote the prisoner, declaring that she would not marry him, and terminating the engagement
On Sunday, October 1, 1916, the day of the homicide, the prisoner went to the home of the deceased between 7 and 8 o'clock in the morning. At that time they had a lover's quarrel, and the deceased told the prisoner that she would not go with him any more. Between 1 and 2 o'clock of that day the deceased left her home to visit at Mr. Haglers. According to the testimony of Glennie Martin and Willie Martin, who went with the deceased, they met the prisoner on the way. He spoke to the deceased, and asked if he could go with her. On being refused, he took hold of her arm and said: "Come on, Florence." She replied, "Charlie, I am not going with you." The deceased and her two companions walked on, the prisoner following. The prisoner again directed the deceased to stop, and they had some conversation about a watch. He demanded that she tell him the reason why she refused to go with him any more, and she replied that she did not have any reason. The testimony is that the party walked on, and the prisoner carried his right hand in his hip pocket all the time. The girls started to run, and the prisoner ran after them, crying out to the deceased: "Florence, I say do not run!" She replied, "You have not got anything to do with me, and I will run if I want to." The prisoner said, "Florence, I say do not run!" The girls walked a few steps, and the prisoner fired three shots at the deceased, who fell at the third shot. After firing the third shot, the prisoner turned and ran. Where he shot the deceased was the darkest...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Zuniga
...may be used to show premeditation and deliberation. See, e.g., State v. Corn, 303 N.C. 293, 278 S.E.2d 221 (1981); State v. Walker, 173 N.C. 780, 92 S.E. 327 (1919). In Myers, we set out some of the circumstances that may be used by a jury to infer premeditation and Among the circumstances ......
-
State v. Buchanan
...439 (1939); State v. Lewis, 209 N.C. 191, 183 S.E. 357 (1936); State v. Steele, 190 N.C. 506, 130 S.E. 308 (1925); State v. Walker, 173 N.C. 780, 92 S.E. 327 (1917); State v. Roberson, 150 N.C. 837, 64 S.E. 182 (1909); State v. Daniel, 139 N.C. 549, 51 S.E. 858 (1905); State v. Hunt, 134 N.......
-
State v. Taylor, 433.
...Miller, 197 N.C. 445, 149 S.E. 590; State v. Baity, 180 N.C. 722, 105 S.E. 200; State v. Bynum, 175 N.C. 777, 95 S.E. 101; State v. Walker, 173 N.C. 780, 92 S.E. 327; State v. Lipscomb, 134 N.C. 689, 47 S.E. 44. The dealing of lethal blows after the deceased had been felled and rendered hel......
-
State v. Evans, (No. 425.)
...Benson, supra. Deliberation means that the act is done in a cool state of the blood, in furtherance of some fixed design. State v. Walker, 173 N. C. 780, 92 S. E. 327. The following charge was approved in State v. Roberson, 150 N. C. 837, 64 S. E. 182, 184: " 'By "premeditation" and "delibe......