State v. Worley
| Decision Date | 13 March 1906 |
| Citation | 53 S.E. 128,141 N.C. 764 |
| Parties | STATE v. WORLEY et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Lenoir County; O. H. Allen, Judge.
Thomas F. Worley was convicted of murder in the second degree, and Clem Worley was convicted of manslaughter. They appeal. Affirmed.
Where the highest offense of which either defendant was convicted was murder in the second degree, error, if any, in the admission of evidence offered to prove premeditation, was harmless.
N. J Rouse, Wooten & Wooten, and Aycock & Daniels, for appellants.
E. M Land, G. V. Cowper, and the Attorney General, for the State.
In the consideration of this appeal we have been greatly aided by most carefully prepared briefs filed by the defendant's counsel, as well as by the Attorney General, who in the investigation of state cases never fails to be of great assistance to the court. The defendants were charged with the murder of one Ed. Warters on April 22, 1905, in the county of Lenoir. There was evidence on the part of the state tending to show that the deceased and the Worleys were in Kinston on the day of the homicide and left there in the afternoon; the deceased and Cully Williams leaving first in a cart; and the Worleys following soon thereafter in a buggy. On the way the parties reached a stock-law gate. Thomas Worley got out of the buggy and, speaking to Cully Williams, said: "Mr Williams, was that you spoke to me back yonder?" Williams replied, "Yes," and Thomas said, "I thought so; I do not speak to that fellow you are with, for he is a d--d coward." About this time it appears that the deceased and the other Worley had alighted from their vehicle and were standing near the gate cursing each other. The deceased had a pistol in his hand, and, as the Worleys started towards him, fired four shots, injuring no one, and then threw his weapon on the ground. When the firing ceased, the Worleys rushed up and a struggle ensued. The deceased broke away and ran down the road, Thomas and Clem following 35 or 40 steps, and in the pursuit Thomas drew a knife and inflicted a number of wounds upon the person of the deceased, from the effect of which he died in a few minutes. Evidence was introduced by the defendants tending to prove that the homicide was committed in self-defense. They contended that the deceased fired at them four times, and that they rushed up for the purpose of disarming him in order to save themselves from death or serious bodily harm.
The defendants being indicted for murder in the first degree, it became necessary for the state to prove premeditation. There was evidence admitted by the court tending to prove premeditition, such as prior threats, and the like. There was also evidence offered by the defendants tending to rebut the charge of premeditated killing, and to prove that, although the defendants and the deceased had a difficulty four months before, they had become reconciled. Practically all of the exceptions to testimony relate to alleged errors in admitting or rejecting this species of evidence. We find no error in his honor's rulings, but we refrain from discussing them, as the record shows that there was no conviction for murder in the first degree, and such testimony was unnecessary to support a conviction for the crimes of which the defendants stand convicted.
Exception 7 relates to the rejection by the court of the declarations of the deceased in relation to a prior difficulty which Thomas Worley and the deceased had some time before the homicide. The evidence was clearly inadmissible. It contained no threat, and was a narrative of a past transaction. Had the language contained a threat, there is no evidence that it was ever communicated. State v. Turpin, 77 N.C. 473, 24 Am. Rep. 455; State v. Sumner, 130 N.C. 718, 41 S.E. 803.
Exception 8: In apt time the defendants in writing requested the judge to instruct the jury: "The presumption of innocence which the law raises in behalf of every defendant, and the presumption of malice arising against Thomas Worley by his admission of the use of a deadly weapon, are both evidence and are to be considered in connection with the other evidence, and if, after considering all of said evidence, the jury have a reasonable doubt of the guilt of Thomas Worley of murder in the second degree, they will find him not guilty of murder in the second degree, and then consider whether he is guilty of manslaughter, or whether he acted in self-defense." The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Lane
...... satisfaction of the jury, unless they arise out of the. evidence against him. This rule has been uniformly adhered to. by this court in indictments for homicide. State v. Quick, 150 N.C. 820, 64 S.E. 168. This principle has. been reiterated by us in more recent cases. State v. Worley, 141 N.C. 764, 53 S.E. 128; State v. Yates, 155 N.C. 450, 71 S.E. 317; State v. Rowe, 155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332; State v. Simonds, 154 N.C. 197, 69 S.E. 790; State v. Cox, 153 N.C. 638, 69 S.E. 419; State v. Fowler, 151 N.C. 731, 66 S.E. 567; and formerly in. [81 S.E. 623.] . State v. ......
-
State v. Gregory
...... raises a presumption of murder in the second degree. This. instruction finds support in the following cases: State. v. Robinson, 188 N.C. 784, 125 S.E. 617; State v. Benson, 183 N.C. 795, 111 S.E. 869; State v. Fowler, 151 N.C. 731, 66 S.E. 567; State v. Worley, 141 N.C. 764, 53 S.E. 128; State v. Willis, 63 N.C. 26; State v. Haywood, 61 N.C. 376. But in each of these cases the court was dealing with an. intentional killing and not with one in which the state's. evidence suggested an accidental killing, or homicide by. misadventure. State v. ......
-
State v. Robertson
......This is the. correct rule. State v. Yates, 155 N.C. 450, 71 S.E. 317; State v. Rowe, 155 N.C. 436, 71 S.E. 332;. State v. Simonds, 154 N.C. 197, 69 S.E. 790;. State v. Brittain, 89 N.C. 481. See, also, State. v. Cox, 153 N.C. 638, 69 S.E. 419; State v. Worley, 141 N.C. 764, 53 S.E. 128. If the prisoners. desired any fuller or more exact instructions, they should. have asked for them by a specific prayer, those given being. substantially correct. Simmons v. Davenport, 140. N.C. 407, 53 S.E. 225; McKinnon v. Morrison, 104. N.C. 354, 10 S.E. 513; Pate ......
-
Buchanan v. Ritter Lumber Co.
...... that these logging roads come clearly within the principle. and are held to the same standard of care. Worley v. Railroad, 157 N.C. 490, 73 S.E. 107; Sawyer v. Railroad, 145 N.C. 24, 58 S.E. [84 S.E. 52] . . 598, 22. L. R. A. (N. S.) ...Railroad, 118 N.C. 1098, 24 S.E. 512, and. in cases before that time, it was declared to be the correct. principle that, if, on a given state of facts, two men of. fair minds could come to different conclusions as to the. existence of negligence, the question must be determined by. the ......