The State v. Henry

• Citation: 50 N.C. 65,5 Jones 65
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
• Decision Date: 31 December 1857
• Parties: THE STATE v. HENRY, (a slave.)

5 Jones (NC) 65

50 N.C. 65

THE STATE

v.HENRY, (a slave.)

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December Term, 1857.

It was held to be error in a Judge to tell the jury that, “in a plain case, a good character would not help the prisoner; but in a doubtful case, he had a right to have it cast into the scales and weighed in his behalf;” the true rule being, that in all cases, a good character is to be considered.

The fact that the prosecutrix in a case against a negro slave, for an assault with an intent to ravish, had made an indecent exposure of her person to the other slaves belonging to the same owner, but which was not known to the accused at the time of the alleged offense, was Held not to be admissible in evidence.

INDICTMENT for an assault with an intention to commit a rape, tried before CALDWELL, J., at the last Fall Term of Perquimons Superior Court.

The evidence sent up in the bill of exceptions was quite full, and seemed to be very strong against the prisoner, but as its quality is entirely disregarded in the opinion of the Court, it is not deemed proper to set it forth in the report of the case. The prisoner, in reply, had advanced evidence of his good character. His Honor, the Judge below, charged the jury upon the testimony, “that in a plain case a good character would not help a prisoner, but in a doubtful case, he had a right to have it cast into the scales and weighed in his behalf.” To this the defendant excepted.

Upon the trial, the defendant offered to show that the prosecutrix had, previously to the time of the alleged assault, made an indecent exposure of her person to the other slaves of his master, but not in the presence of the prisoner. This evidence was ruled out by the Court, for which the prisoner excepted.

The prisoner was found guilty. Judgment was rendered, and the prisoner appealed.

Attorney General, for the State .

No counsel appeared for the defendant in this Court.

BATTLE, J.

The charge of his Honor to the jury, as to the effect of the testimony, in relation to the character of the prisoner was, in our opinion, erroneous. It is not a rule of law that, in a plain case, the jury must not consider the evidence of the prisoner's good character, and that it is only “in a doubtful case that he has a right to have it cast into the scales and weighed in his behalf.” It is admitted that, in all cases, a person accused of a crime of any grade, whether a felony or a misdemeanor, has a right to offer in his defense testimony of his good character. Whatever is admitted as competent evidence must be for the consideration of the jury. Who, then, is to decide whether the case is a plain one, by which the testimony is to be withdrawn from them? It cannot be the court, because that would be deciding on the facts, and thus usurping the province of the jury. It cannot be the jury, because that would be deciding the preliminary question of competency, and thus usurping the province of the court. The advocate of the rule is thus placed in a dilemma, by taking either horn of which he is involved in an absurdity. The true rule is, that the testimony is to go to the jury, and be considered by them, in connection with all the other facts and circumstances, and if they believe the accused to be guilty, they must so find, notwithstanding his good character.

The pretended rule probably grew out of a remark which a Judge might very properly make to a jury, that if they believed the defendant was guilty, they ought not to acquit, although he had proved that he was a man of good character. Such a remark, properly understood, does not withdraw the consideration of character from the jury; it presupposes that the testimony of character has been duly weighed by them, and it can legitimately operate only as a caution to the jury; thus the testimony is not of itself to preponderate over all the other facts and circumstances given in evidence, and thus produce an acquittal, merely because the party charged had previously borne a good character. The Judges, no doubt, insensibly fell...