State v. Williams
| Decision Date | 08 November 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 363.,363. |
| Citation | 5 S.E.2d 314,216 N.C. 446 |
| Parties | STATE. v. WILLIAMS et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Sampson County; Williams, Judge.
Raymond Williams and Henry Williams were convicted of murder, and they appeal. No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon one indictment charging the defendants, Raymond Williams, Henry Williams and Lee Simpson, with conspiracy to murder Nathan Reif, and upon a second indictment charging the defendant, Raymond Williams, with the murder of Nathan Reif, and upon a third indictment charging the defendant, Henry Williams, with the murder of Nathan Reif.
By consent, the cases were consolidated and tried together, each indictment beingconsidered as a separate count in a single bill.
Verdict: "The jury for their verdict say that the defendants, Raymond Williams and Henry Williams, are guilty of murder in the first degree."
It is stated in the case on appeal that the defendant, Lee Simpson, was convicted of murder in the second degree, sentenced to thirty years in the State's Prison, and that he has not appealed.
Judgments: Death by asphyxiation as to both Raymond Williams and Henry Williams.
The defendants, Raymond Williams and Henry Williams, appeal, assigning errors.
P. D. Herring, of Clinton, for appellant Raymond Williams.
B. H. Crumpler, of Clinton, for appellant Henry Williams.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and G. B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The deceased was a peddler, carrying his merchandise in an automobile, and selling it from house to house in Sampson County. On 24 November, 1938, it was known that he had a large sum of money. This was seen by the defendants when the deceased sold some goods at a filling station and made change from his pocketbook. The evidence discloses that the three defendants planned to rob the deceased by inducing him to go to the home of Lee Simpson under the pretext that Simpson's wife would buy some of his merchandise. They waited for the peddler upon the highway as he came from the filling station, and their plans were executed apparently with ease and precision. Soon after the deceased arrived at the Simpson home he was struck in the back of the head with an axe and mortally wounded. He was then placed in his automobile and the automobile was moved out of the yard and parked on the side of the road about 200 yards away. Here the deceased was found by some of the witnesses, bloody and struggling for life. Simpson's wife testifies that Raymond Williams struck the fatal blow, and that Raymond and Henry then placed the deceased in his car and moved it out of the yard. Thus, as a result of the conspiracy to rob, the deceased lost, not only his money, but also his life. Pools of blood and the empty bill-folder belonging to the deceased were found in the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Small
...Id. at 115, 147 S.E. at 734. This statement, along with the original Greenleaf quote, then found a home in State v. Williams, 216 N.C. 446, 5 S.E.2d 314 (1939), a homicide case wherein defendants conspired to rob the deceased and then all acted together in the perpetration of the fatal robb......
-
State v. Hairston
...part of the original design, but which are a natural or probable consequence of the unlawful combination or undertaking. State v. Williams, 216 N.C. 446, 5 S.E.2d 314; State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, at page 294, 154 S.E. 604; 1 Brill's Cyclopedia Crim. Law, 464. The general rule is, that if a......
-
State v. Carey
...principle, see State v. Kelly, 243 N.C. 177, 90 S.E.2d 241 (1955); State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 20 S.E.2d 360 (1942); State v. Williams, 216 N.C. 446, 5 S.E.2d 314 (1939); 16 Am.Jur.2d, Conspiracy § 14 The following statement from State v. Fox, 277 N.C. 1, 175 S.E.2d 561 (1970), is in agre......
-
State v. St.On
...224 N.C. 722, 32 S.E.2d 352; State v. Miller, 219 N.C. 514, 14 S.E.2d 522; State v. Kelly, 216 N. C. 627, 6 S.E.2d 533; State v. Williams, 216 N.C. 446, 5 S.E.2d 314; State v. Alston, 215 N.C. 713, 3 S.E.2d 11; State v. Exum, 213 N.C. 16, 195 S.E. 7; State v. Linney, 212 N.C. 739, 194 S.E. ......