State v. White

• Decision Date: 08 March 1916
• Docket Number: (No. 97.)
• Citation: 171 N.C. 785,87 S.E. 984
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE . v. WHITE et al.

87 S.E. 984

171 N.C. 785

STATE .

v.WHITE et al.

(No. 97.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 8, 1916.

Appeal from Superior Court, Bertie County; Lyon, Judge.

York G. White and others were convicted of willfully, wantonly, and feloniously burning stables and barns of another, and they appeal. Affirmed.

The defendants were indicted for willfully, wantonly, and feloniously setting fire to and burning the stables and barn of one J. R. Lawrence. They were convicted, and appeal ed from the judgment pronounced upon the verdict

J. R. Lawrence was introduced as a witness for the state, and upon his examination was handed a map of his plantation and premises, where the crime was alleged to have been committed, showing the relative position of the witness' house and outbuildings and of the homes of the defendants, and he was examined with reference to these places. The defendants objected. The court stated to the jury that the map was not introduced as substantive evidence, but merely for the purpose of enabling the witness to explain his testimony.

His honor, in the first part of the charge, stated that the defendants were indicted for wantonly and feloniously burning the barn and stables of J. R. Lawrence, and, after stating fully the contentions of the state and the defendants, he concluded his charge by saying:

"You are the sole triers of the facts, and you are to find the facts from the evidence, and, if you find that the defendants are guilty of burning the barn, it will be your duty to convict them."

The defendants excepted.

The evidence is not sent up as a part of the record, but the charge of the court shows that the defendants denied burning the barn and stables, and that they relied upon an alibi.

W. R. Johnson and J. B. Martin, both of Windsor, and Winborne & Winborne, of Murfreesboro, for appellants.

T. W. Bickett, Atty. Gen., and T. H. Calvert, Asst. Atty. Gen., Winston & Matthews and Gillam & Davenport, all of Windsor, for the State.

ALLEN, J. [1] It has been held by numerous decisions that it is competent for a witness to use a map upon the trial for the purpose of explaining his evidence, and the first exception of the defendants cannot be sustained. State v. Harrison, 145 N. C. 410, 59 S. E. 867; State v. Rogers, 168 N. C. 112, 83 S. E. 161, and the cases cited.

The exception to the charge is equally without merit. The evidence is not made a part of the case on appeal, but it sufficiently appears from the charge of the court that the matter in...