State v. Wise

• Decision Date: 17 December 1945
• Docket Number: 652
• Citation: 36 S.E.2d 230,225 N.C. 746
• Parties: STATE v. WISE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

36 S.E.2d 230

225 N.C. 746

STATE v. WISE.

No. 652

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 17, 1945

The defendant was indicted for the murder of his paramour. The evidence offered by the State, based largely on admissions made by the defendant to the officers, tended to show that adulterous relations between defendant and deceased, the wife of Quinnie Williams, had been engaged in for some months; that on August 11, 1945, as they had done on previous occasions, these two went to a place in the woods, a pine thicket several miles west of Greensboro; that they were driven in an automobile by one Warren to a point on a side road where they got out and walked to this thicket; that following some argument the disagreement was made up and sexual relations were had; that thereafter defendant announced that their relations must cease as they would be found out and trouble ensue; that deceased opposed the suggestion and in the discussion that followed she struck him with her hand one time in the chest, to which he responded by striking her with his fist knocking her down; and then as she lay on the ground he took her chin in his left hand, drew his pocket knife and cut her throat; that as she did not die immediately, and still showed signs of life, he went into the woods near by, secured a stick or club and beat her over the head and neck; that he took her pocketbook, watch and glasses and returned to the car and told Warren he had killed her. The evidence disclosed that the body had been dragged a short distance from where she was killed, and several days elapsed before it was discovered. Decomposition had set in. Post-morten examination revealed that death was due to a broken vertebra in the neck. The deceased's watch and glasses were found in defendant's home, as well as the knife with which defendant admitted to the officers he had cut her. A stick or club was found near where the body had lain, and this the defendant told the officers was the one which he had used.

The defendant offered no evidence.

There was verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, with recommendation of mercy, and from judgment imposing sentence of death defendant appealed.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Hughes J. Rhodes, Ralph M. Moody and J. E. Tucker, Asst. Attys. Gen., for State.

F. L Paschal, of Greensboro, for defendant.

DEVIN Justice.

The defendant assigns error in the ruling of the court below admitting in evidence over objection the testimony of the officers as to confessions made to them by the defendant. The record does not disclose that the defendant requested further inquiry or findings by the court, or offered any testimony to controvert the statements of the officers. He presents the question only by his exception to the evidence. The officers having testified that upon arresting the defendant they warned him of his rights and advised him he did not have to make a statement unless he wished, and that his statements would be used against him, there was nothing to rebut the presumption that the confessions were voluntarily given. The admissions of the defendant were supported by the finding of the watch and glasses of deceased in defendant's home, and the weapon with which she was beaten to death at the place where he admitted it was used.

Exception to the introduction of evidence of defendant's confession cannot be sustained. State v. Wagstaff, 219 N.C. 15, 12 S.E.2d 657; State v. Grass, 223 N.C. With the testimony of these admissions properly in evidence, the defendant's exception to the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit becomes untenable.

The defendant assigns error in the charge of the court to the jury in that the court's definition of 'deliberation' was incomplete. The language of the court excepted to was this: 'Deliberation, gentlemen of the jury, means to think about, to revolve over in one's mind; while premeditation means to think beforehand, to form a prior determination to do the act. ' Then followed definition of murder in the second degree, malice and manslaughter, to which no exception was noted. Later the court gave this instruction: 'Now, gentlemen of the jury the court instructs you as a matter of law that the law does not lay down any rule as to the time that must elapse between the moment when a person premeditates or reaches a determination in his own mind to kill, and the moment when he does the killing, as a test. It is not a question of time. If the determination is formed deliberately and upon due reflection it makes no difference how soon afterwards the fatal resolve is carried into execution. So, where one forms a purpose to take the life of another and weighs this purpose in his mind long enough to form a fixed design or determination to kill at a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how late, and pursuant thereto kills, this would be a killing with premeditation and...