State v. Whitfield
| Decision Date | 20 June 1934 |
| Docket Number | 481. |
| Citation | 175 S.E. 93,206 N.C. 696 |
| Parties | STATE v. WHITFIELD. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Shaw, Emergency Judge.
George Whitfield was convicted of rape, and he appeals.
No error.
Ruling on motion for continuance in criminal case is not reviewable except for manifest abuse of discretion.
Criminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the defendant with rape.
It is established by the state's evidence that on the morning of October 3, 1933, the prisoner, who had been out the night before attending a dance, appeared at the home of the prosecuting witness, 511 Hinton's alley, Greensboro, N C., about an hour after her husband had left for his work at the Pomona Cotton Mill. The prosecuting witness was alone in the house at the time, with the exception of her 15 month old baby. She did not know the prisoner and had never seen him before. The prisoner, speaking to her from the front porch said he had come to bring her husband a bottle of whisky. On being informed that her husband was at work and would not be back before 3 o'clock, the prisoner broke open the screen door, approached the prosecuting witness with an open knife in his hand, threatened to kill her if she made an outcry knocked her baby out of her arms, choked her, threw her to the floor, and ravished her, forcibly and against her will. The prisoner then made his escape, and was apprehended about a week later.
The prisoner, testifying in his own behalf, said: That he was a bootlegger; that he had been in the home of the prosecuting witness a number of times to deliver home-brew and whisky that on the morning in question she began quarreling with him about making her husband drunk; that he entered the house on her invitation: ; that the prosecuting witness had a knife and was threatening to kill him; that he grabbed her arm and choked her in self-defense: "I draws her up to me and shoves her back against the wall; she falls and starts to hollering; I opens the door, takes a running start and jumps over the fence, and goes across the field; I hears her hollering: 'Arrest that man." D'
The prisoner further testified that he went on an extended tour, traveling by train and truck, first to Alexandria, Baltimore, and Philadelphia, and then to Boston; that he returned as soon as he thought the threat of mob violence was over.
The prisoner was arraigned on October 23, and counsel duly appointed to represent him. His trial was set for October 25. Upon the call of the case, counsel moved for a continuance on the ground that they had not had time to prepare the defense. Motion overruled; exception.
Verdict: Guilty of rape.
Judgment: Death by electrocution.
The prisoner appeals, assigning errors.
Block & Rockwell, of Greensboro, for appellant.
Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A. F. Seawell and T. W. Bruton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
Did the refusal of the trial court to grant the prisoner's motion for a continuance impinge upon his constitutional right of confrontation? All the assignments of error, properly made, revolve around this one question.
The rule undoubtedly is, that the right of confrontation carries with it, not only the right to face one's "accusers and witnesses with other testimony" (Section 11, Declaration of Rights, Const.), but also the opportunity fairly to present one's defense. State v. Ross, 193 N.C. 25, 136 S.E. 193; State v. Hartsfield, 188 N.C. 357, 124 S.E. 629. A right observed according to form, but at variance with substance, is a right denied. State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E. 180; State v. Hightower, 187 N.C. 300, 121 S.E. 616; State v. Hardy, 189 N.C. 799, 128 S.E. 152.
Speaking to the subject in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 53 S.Ct. 55, 65, 77 L.Ed. 158, 84 A. L. R. 527, it was said by the court of final authority that: "In a capital case where the defendant is unable to employ counsel, and is incapable adequately of making his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Creech
...right belonging to the defendant was infringed in disposing of the matter. State v. Farrell, 223 N.C. 321, 26 S.E.2d 322; State v. Whitfield, 206 N.C. 696, 175 S.E. 93; State v. Ross, 193 N.C. 25, 136 S.E. 193. the record negatives any suggestion of want of due process or unconstitutionalit......
-
State v. Harris
...denied, 410 U.S. 967, 93 S.Ct. 1445, 35 L.Ed.2d 702; State v. Gibson, supra; State v. Utley, 223 N.C. 39, 25 S.E.2d 195; State v. Whitfield, 206 N.C. 696, 175 S.E. 93, Cert. denied, 293 U.S. 556, 55 S.Ct. 114, 79 L.Ed. The evidence in this case discloses that defendant was afforded a prelim......
-
State v. Godwin
... ... *** 'palpable abuse' *** or 'gross abuse' ... ***." State v. Rhodes, 202 N.C. 101, 102, 103, ... 161 S.E. 722; State v. Lea, 203 N.C. 13, 24, 164 ... S.E. 737; State v. Garner, 203 N.C. 361, 166 S.E ... 180; State v. Banks, 204 N.C. 233, 237, 167 S.E ... 851; State v. Whitfield, 206 N.C. 696, 698, 175 S.E ... The ... second question presented on this appeal: Was it error for ... the Court below to refuse defendant's motion for change ... of venue or for a special venire? We think not under the ... facts and circumstances of this case ... [3 ... ...
-
State v. Utley
...denial of petition for writ of certiorari is recorded, of which notation appears in 207 N.C. 878. In that case it is stated that [206 N.C. 696, 175 S.E. 94] rule undoubtedly is, that the right of confrontation carries with it, not only the right to face one's 'accusers and witnesses with ot......