State v. Wilson

• Citation: 10 S.E. 315,104 N.C. 868
• Parties: STATE v. WILSON.
• Decision Date: 09 December 1889
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

10 S.E. 315

104 N.C. 868

STATE v. WILSON.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 9, 1889

Appeal from superior court, Yancey county; ARMFIELD, Judge.

This was an indictment for murder tried before ARMFIELD, J., at spring term, 1889, of Yancey superior court.

Counsel for the prisoner did not contradict the fact of the homicide by the prisoner, nor the circumstances under which it was committed, as detailed by the state's witnesses, but they insisted that the killing was accidental; that the killing was only manslaughter, at most; that, if this was not so then the prisoner was in same and mentally irresponsible at the time of the killing, from the effect of a blow he had formerly received on the head, which either alone, or joined with the effect of the spirituous liquor he had drank, would make the homicide excusable. Counsel for the prisoner submitted in writing the following instruction for the jury to-wit: "(1) If the defendant drew his pistol, and presented it, not intending to shoot the deceased, but to drive him away by a show of force, and by the careless and negligent handling of the pistol it accidently fired and killed the deceased, it is but manslaughter; and in investigating this case the jury must consider the want of provocation, the absence of motive, the friendly relations of the defendant and deceased immediately preceeding the act and the mental and physical condition of the defendant at the time. That, while drunkenness is no mitigation for crime, it may be taken into consideration by the jury in this case as a circumstance to be considered for what it is worth in determining the defendant's claim that the shooting was accidental. (2) That, the killing being with a deadly weapon malice is presumed, but if from all the facts and circumstances the jury are satisfied that it was through no motive, but that the killing was through the carelessness of the defendant, it is manslaughter. (3) If the jury are satisfied that the defendant was so intoxicated as to have his reason dethroned for the time being, without any intent to commit murder, he is not guilty. (4) Malice and premeditation being necessary to constitute murder, it is competent to look into the prisoner's condition of intoxication at the time of the homicide to see if he was capable of forming the intent required; that if, by reason of his intoxication, his reason was so completely dethroned that he could not distinguish right from wrong, that he would be incapable of forming the intent, and therefore would only be guilty of manslaughter." His honor declined to give these instructions, and charged the jury, in substance, as follows: That if they believed from the testimony in the case that the prisoner slew the deceased, with the weapon and under the circumstances testified to by the state's witnesses, then there was no evidence for them to consider of an...