State v. . Bishop

42 S.E. 836, 131 N.C. 733, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 353
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 18, 1902
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 S.E. 836 (State v. . Bishop) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. . Bishop, 42 S.E. 836, 131 N.C. 733, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 353 (N.C. 1902).

Opinion

CLARK and MONTGOMERY, JJ., dissenting. The prisoners are indicted for the (734) murder of Thomas Stevenson; found guilty of murder in the first degree, and are now under sentence of death. The evidence discloses the following facts:

C. T. Peele is a merchant in Bertie County, and on the morning *Page 510 of 9 April Joe Peele left an order at his store to let Jim Stevenson have twenty pounds of meat and a sack of meal; that evening about 4 or 5 o'clock Peele's wagon drove up to the store with the prisoners in it. Melton Belfield, it seems, came up about the same time. It seems that they had been to some kind of a gathering at a place called Kelford that day, and were returning. It further appears that all three of the prisoners and Melton Belfield went into the store, and Jim asked for the meat he was to get. Peele, the owner, and Stevenson, the deceased, who was a clerk, were both in the store. Jim said he wanted to look at some shoes, and the deceased said to Peele, "You show him the shoes and I will go and weigh the meat," which seems to have been in another room. About this time Melton Belfield commenced to curse the deceased, calling him the meanest thing he could think of, among others, a "son of a bitch." The deceased said he would not take that, and reached up and got his pistol. Peele ordered them all out, and they all went but Melton. He did not go at once; and Jim came back in the store and took him by the arm and tried to get him out. But it does not seem that he succeeded as Peele says he gave Melton some "soda" and went with him to the door, and turned to go and weigh the meat, and met the deceased going to the door. He then heard pistols firing; turned back, and they were all out of doors, and the deceased was shot. There were quite a number of shots, he thinks as many as ten or fifteen, but he saw no one shoot but Melton, and did not see either of the prisoners have a pistol nor take any part in the fight. These are as near the facts as we can get them from Peele's evidence.

(735) It seems that the deceased was shot in four places, and as many as seven shot holes were in his clothing, and, from the evidence of Dr. Capehart, the shots were fired from behind. Some of the witnesses, who were some distance from the place of the homicide, thought there were as many as twenty shots. It does not appear whether the deceased's pistol was empty or loaded. No witness saw either of the prisoners shoot, nor have a pistol. Stevenson was killed almost instantly. Melton Belfield escaped, and was afterwards killed in being arrested.

This was an unfortunate affair. Two men are dead and three are now under sentence of death. The prisoners are further unfortunate; the man that was killed was a white man and the prisoners are negroes and are kin to Melton Belfield.

The charge of the court is not sent up, and we must presume it was correct, except as to the refusal to give the special instructions asked by the prisoners. These were as follows: *Page 511

"1. That upon the evidence the jury cannot find a verdict of murder in the first degree.

"2. That upon the evidence the jury cannot find a verdict of murder in the second degree.

"3. That upon the evidence the jury should render a verdict of not guilty."

From the many decisions of this Court since the act of 1893, dividing murder into two degrees, the law of murder in the second degree, manslaughter, excusable and justifiable homicide is the same as before the passage of that act, except as to the punishment, which is not capital now. S. v. Rhyne, 124 N.C. 847. And, outside of the enumerated cases, such as "poisoning, lying in wait," etc., to make the crime murder in the first degree and a capital felony, the State must prove, in addition to malice, that the killing was done with "deliberation and premeditation." And it is held that such deliberation and premeditation does not mean that the prisoner intended to kill at the (736) moment he gave the fatal blow. This is not sufficient. But he must have coolly and deliberately considered the consequences of his act before putting it into execution, in order to make the killing murder in the first degree and a capital felony. S. v. Foster, 130 N.C. 666, which case carefully reviews the statute and the decisions of this Court thereon, and is an authority for the law as stated above. And we see no evidence in this case showing or tending to show "premeditation" or "deliberation" on the part of the prisoners, if they did the killing. The store at which the killing took place was a public place, to which parties were invited and expected to go. They were, therefore, not trespassers nor intruders; and when the difficulty commenced between Melton Belfield and Thomas Stevenson (the deceased), and they were ordered out of the store, the prisoners immediately went out, and Jim Stevenson went back in the store, took Melton by the arm and tried to get him out. Melton did not go out immediately, and Peele gave him some "soda," and he then went out. Peele then turned and started to the wareroom to weigh the meat, and met the deceased going to the door with his pistol, and very soon thereafter the firing commenced. Peele at once turned back, and, when he got to the door, Melton (deceased) and the prisoners were all out in the road, about fifteen feet from the store. The deceased was down. And he saw no one shoot except Melton. Besides, this store being a public place, where all persons were invited to go, the undisputed evidence is that one Joe Peele had that morning left an order at the store to let Jim Stevenson have twenty pounds of meat and a sack of meal; and that evening Peele's wagon drove up, with the prisoners in it or with *Page 512 it, and they went in the store, and Jim asked if Peele had left the order, and was told that he had.

Upon these facts the court, though specially requested (737) to do so, refused to instruct the jury "that, upon the evidence, the jury cannot find a verdict of murder in the first degree." In refusing to give this instruction there was error.

But to entitle the State to a verdict for anything, it must prove the killing by the prisoners. That Thomas Stevenson was killed, there is no dispute. But the evidence strongly tends to show that he was killed by Melton Belfield, and the prisoners deny that they killed him. Admitting that there was some evidence tending to show that there were other shots fired besides those Melton fired (and this is the only evidence showing or tending to show that anyone but Melton fired), not a single witness points out or identifies anyone except Melton that did fire. It may be well said, from this evidence, that if any shots were fired except by Melton and the deceased, it was by some one of the prisoners, but which one, or which two, was it that fired? No witness says or undertakes to say which one it was. Indeed, they say they cannot say which one, nor can they say that they all fired. Unless this could be done, then, in the entire absence of any evidence that the killing was the result of a conspiracy, agreement or understanding between the prisoners, or the prisoners and Melton Belfield, to commit the murder, none of the prisoners can be convicted. If they could, it would be to convict an innocent man rather than fail to convict a guilty man. This is not the law. Where two or more are indicted for murder, and the evidence shows that one of the prisoners is guilty, but the evidence fails to show which one, they must all be acquitted.

"Although it may be positively proved that one of two or more persons committed a crime, yet it is uncertain which is the guilty party, all must be acquitted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Baggett
237 S.E.2d 827 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Streeton
56 S.E.2d 649 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
State v. Goode
41 S.E. 3 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 S.E. 836, 131 N.C. 733, 1902 N.C. LEXIS 353, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-bishop-nc-1902.