State v. . Fowler

66 S.E. 567, 151 N.C. 731, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 358
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedDecember 23, 1909
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 66 S.E. 567 (State v. . Fowler) 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. . Fowler, 66 S.E. 567, 151 N.C. 731, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 358 (N.C. 1909).

Opinion

WALKER, J., concurs in result. This appeal presents two assignments of error. *Page 703

1. Did the judge err in submitting to the jury the question of manslaughter? Under S. v. Quick, 150 N.C. 820, such an error is without prejudice to the defendant, and he cannot complain. When, as in this case, the plea is self-defense and the killing with a deadly weapon is established or admitted, two presumptions arise — (1) that the killing was unlawful; (2) that it was done with malice.

An unlawful killing is manslaughter, and when there is the added element of malice it is murder in the second degree. When the defendant takes up the laboring oar he must rebut both presumptions — the presumption that the killing was unlawful and the presumption that it was done with malice. If he stops when he has rebutted the presumption of malice, the presumption that the killing was unlawful still stands, and, unless rebutted, the defendant is guilty of manslaughter. This is a fair deduction from the cases in this State. S. v. Hogan, 131 N.C. 802; S. v. Brittain,89 N.C. 501, 502.

At the request of defendant, the judge charged the jury very explicitly that if they should find from the evidence offered by the defendant that the killing occurred under circumstances claimed by him (733) and testified to by his witnesses, they should return a verdict of not guilty.

The jury discarded defendant's plea, and if, as now argued by him, there was nothing in the evidence to warrant a verdict of manslaughter, it was the duty of the jury to convict of murder in second degree.

It necessarily follows that, under such circumstances, the defendant cannot complain of a verdict for manslaughter, a lesser degree of homicide. An error on the side of mercy is not reversible. But we think there is in this case, as in S. v. Quick, evidence upon which a verdict of manslaughter may be supported.

2. His Honor stated to the jury in one part of his charge that if they were "left in doubt" as to whether the defendant slew in self-defense, they should return a verdict of manslaughter.

This was erroneous, and if the objectionable words stood alone, as in S.v. Clark, 134 N.C. 698, we would award a new trial.

In the case at bar, taking the charge as a whole, it is a very clear and luminous exposition of the law of homicide.

A charge is not to be interpreted by picking out an expression here and there. "It is to be considered as a whole, in the same connection in which it was given and upon the presumption that the jury did not overlook any portion of it. If, when so construed, it presents the law fairly and correctly to the jury, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, though some of the expressions, when standing alone, might be regarded as erroneous." 2 Thompson on Trials, sec. 2407; S. v. Exum, *Page 704 138 N.C. 602; Everett v. Spencer, 122 N.C. 1010; Westbrook v. Wilson,135 N.C. 402.

His Honor gave this prayer in the words in which it was expressed: "That the prisoner is not required to rebut the presumption of malice arising from the killing with a deadly weapon beyond a reasonable doubt, but to the satisfaction of the jury." The instruction that the plea of self-defense must be sustained only to the satisfaction of the jury was repeated so often and made so plain in the charge that we cannot think that the jurors were misled.

No error.

WALKER, J., concurs in result.

Cited: S. v. Thomson, 153 N.C. 621; S. v. Cox, ibid., 642; S. v. Rowe,155 N.C. 447, 448; S. v. Lane, 166 N.C. 339; S. v. Cameron, ibid., 384. *Page 705 MEMORANDUM CASES

These cases, left out of former volumes, are now printed by request.

S. (appellant) v. JOHN MARTIN, from Washington. Per Curiam, December 22. Reversed under S. v. Burchfield, 149 N.C. 537.

J. D. ODOM, TRUSTEE, AND ROCKY MOUNT SUPPLY CO. v. W. H. CLARK (appellant). Per Curiam, September 23. Affirmed. Claude Kitchin and W. E.Daniel for plaintiff; Day, Bell Dunn, Murray Allen and E. L. Travis for defendant.

S. v. JOHN MORTON (appellant), from Craven. Per Curiam, September 23. Affirmed. Attorney-General, Hayden Clement and D. L. Ward for plaintiff;Moore Dunn and D. E. Henderson for defendant.

THE CABLE CO. (appellant) v. W. T. HADDER, from Craven. Per Curiam, September 23. Affirmed. R. A. Nunn for plaintiff; D. L. Ward for defendant.

E. J. WHITE, JR., v. CITY OF NEW BERN (appellant), from Craven. PerCuriam, September 30. Affirmed. D. L. Ward for plaintiff; W. D. McIver for defendant.

J. P. McCULLEN v. S. A. L. RAILWAY CO. (appellant), from Craven. PerCuriam, September 30. Affirmed. W. D. McIver for plaintiff; Day, Bell Allen and W. W. Clark for defendant.

J. M. ARNOLD (appellant) v. MOYER HAHN, from Craven Per Curiam, September 23. Affirmed. W. D. McIver and Moore Dunn for plaintiff; M. DeW.Stevenson and Simmons, Ward Allen for defendant.

L. W. BRAME v. S.W. CLARK (appellant), from Craven. September 30. Affirmed. A. C. Zollicoffer and Thomas M. Pittman for plaintiff; T. T.Hicks for defendant.

W. S. BAILEY v. A. C. L. RAILWAY CO. (appellant), from Nash. Per Curiam, September 30. Affirmed. F. S. Spruill for defendant.

J. G. STATON v. J. I. GILLIS (appellant), from Martin. Per Curiam, October 14. Affirmed. H. W. Stubbs for plaintiff; Wheeler Martin, W. W.Clark and H. A. Gilliam for defendant.

W. H. MANN ET AL. (appellant) v. GEORGE S. BAKER ET AL., from Franklin.Per Curiam, September 29. Affirmed. B. B. Massenburg for plaintiff; Bickett White for defendant.

CHARLES F. DUNN (appellant) v. JOHN L. WHITE AND NETA WHITE. from Lenoir.Per Curiam, October 7. Affirmed. Charles F. Dunn for plaintiff; G. V.Cowper and Loftin, Varser Dawson for defendant. *Page 706

W. D. POLLOCK v. CHARLES F. DUNN (appellant), from Lenior. Per Curiam, October 7. Affirmed. Y. T. Ormond, E. M. Land and G. V. Cowper for plaintiff; Charles F. Dunn for defendant.

ALEX. TILGHMAN v. W. H. WATERS (appellant), from Lenoir. Per Curiam, October 6. Affirmed. Wooten Clark for plaintiff; Rouse Land and H. E.Shaw for defendant.

FLEISHMAN, MORRIS CO. v. GEORGE E. ROBERTSON (appellant), from Wake.Per Curiam. Allowed. Peele Maynard and R. N. Simms for plaintiff.

S. v. J. O. WILLIAMSON (appellant), from Columbus. Per Curiam, October 14. Affirmed. Attorney-General, D. L. Lenoir, J. B. Schulken and N. A.Sinclair

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

Related

State v. Ray
261 S.E.2d 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1980)
State v. Tomlin
217 S.E.2d 755 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1975)
State v. Harris
208 S.E.2d 266 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Vestal
195 S.E.2d 297 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Long
187 S.E.2d 47 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
State v. Rogers
159 S.E.2d 525 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Phillips
142 S.E.2d 337 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1965)
State v. Chase
58 S.E.2d 364 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
State v. . Keaton
175 S.E. 296 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1934)
State v. . Gregory
166 S.E. 387 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Fleming
163 S.E. 453 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Ferrell
163 S.E. 563 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1932)
State v. . Miller
149 S.E. 590 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1929)
State v. . Newsome
143 S.E. 187 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
66 S.E. 567, 151 N.C. 731, 1909 N.C. LEXIS 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-fowler-nc-1909.