State v. Wilcox

• Decision Date: 20 June 1934
• Docket Number: 483.
• Citation: 175 S.E. 122,206 N.C. 691
• Parties: STATE v. WILCOX.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

175 S.E. 122

206 N.C. 691

STATE v. WILCOX.

No. 483.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

June 20, 1934

Appeal from Superior Court, Robeson County; Sinclair, Judge.

Haynes Wilcox was convicted of possessing liquor, and he appeals.

New trial.

At common law, one accused of crime was incompetent to testify in his own behalf, on theory that he would swear falsely.

A warrant was issued for the defendant in the recorder's court of Lumberton, charging him with possessing and transporting liquor. Upon conviction in the recorder's court, he appealed to the superior court, and was again convicted. The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant Wilcox had a half gallon of liquor in his car, and that the back seat was wet and smelled like liquor, and that some hay in the car was also wet and carried the odor of whisky.

The defendant was a witness in his own behalf, and testified that some colored men got into his car with his consent to ride to town, and that, if any whisky was in the car, it belonged to these men.

The jury found the defendant guilty of possession, and, from judgment assigning him to work upon the public roads for a period of six months, he appealed.

E. J. & L. J. Britt and McLean & Stacy, all of Lumberton, for appellant.

Dennis G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen., and A. A F. Seawell and T. W Bruton, Asst. Attys Gen., for the State.

BROGDEN Justice.

If a defendant in a criminal action voluntarily testifies in his own behalf, does the law "presume when a man is being tried for crime, that he is naturally laboring under a temptation to testify to whetever he thinks may be necessary to clear himself of the charge," and in scrutinizing his testimony, in order to determine its credibility and weight must the jury take "into consideration what a conviction would mean to him and the temptation under which he labors to swear to whatever he thinks is necessary to clear himself?"

The trial judge charged the jury as follows: "Another rule of law it is your duty to apply in this case as you do in all criminal cases, that is, that you are to scrutinize the evidence of the defendant before accepting his evidence as true. The law says it is the duty of a jury in a criminal case to scrutinize the evidence of a defendant and all his close relations before accepting his evidence as true. There is reason for that, just as you will find reason for everything in the law if you take the trouble to inquire into it. The law is founded upon common sense and human experience, for that reason the law presumes that men's natures are weak and subject to temptation, and the law presumes when a man is being tried for crime that he is naturally laboring under a temptation to testify to whatever he thinks may be necessary to clear himself of the charge. For that reason it becomes your duty to scrutinize the evidence of the defendant, taking into consideration what a conviction would mean to him and the temptation under which he labors to swear to whatever he thinks is necessary to clear himself. It is to his interest in the case and his temptation to try to avoid a verdict against himself. If, after scrutinizing the testimony of defendant, taking into consideration the temptation under which he labors, natural wish to clear himself of the charge and then find his testimony is true, it would be your duty to give it the same weight as you would give a disinterested witness."

The common law regarded the testimony of a defendant in criminal actions as incompetent upon the theory, among others, that the frailty of human nature and the overpowering desire for freedom would ordinarily induce a person charged with crime if permitted to testify, to swear falsely. It could not conceive of a person "that sweareth to his own hurt and changeth not." ...