State v. . Jenkins

182 S.E. 324, 208 N.C. 740, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 117
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 20, 1935
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 182 S.E. 324 (State v. . Jenkins) 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. . Jenkins, 182 S.E. 324, 208 N.C. 740, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 117 (N.C. 1935).

Opinion

Stagy, O. J.

The evidence on behalf of the State tends to show that on the night of 4 July, 1935, the defendant shot and killed Paul Collins under circumstances which the jury found to be murder in the first degree. The shooting occurred on one of the principal streets in the town of Bessemer City. The defendant told the night policeman, who arrested him, “that he didn’t want to shoot the deceased, but he made me do it.” Later, on being informed by the same policeman that Collins was dead, the defendant said, “I am glad, I did a damn good job”; and, further, “there was an old grudge between me and Paul Collins and Doc Horsley over dope.”

The pleas interposed by the defendant were self-defense and insanity or mental irresponsibility. Both of these pleas were rejected by the jury. The only testimony offered by the defendant to support his plea of insanity was that of several witnesses who would have testified, if permitted to dó so, that the defendant was a man of low mentality. The exclusion of this evidence is the principal question presented by the appeal. There was no error in its exclusion. S. v. Vernon, ante, 340. Low mentality is not the test of insanity. S. v. Spivey, 132 N. C., 989, 43 S. E., 475. He who knows the right and still the wrong pursues is amenable to the criminal law. S. v. Potts, 100 N. C., 457, 6 S. E., 657. We are aware of the criticism of this standard by some psychiatrists and others. Nevertheless, the critics have offered nothing better. It has the merit of being well established, practical, and so plain “that he may run that readeth it.” Hab. 2:2.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

Related

State v. Gibbs
436 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
State v. Humphrey
196 S.E.2d 516 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Rogers
168 S.E.2d 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Spence
155 S.E.2d 802 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. Scales
87 S.E.2d 916 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1955)
State v. Lamm
61 S.E.2d 188 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
State v. Shackleford
59 S.E.2d 825 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
State v. Creech
229 N.C. 662 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
State v. . Matthews
39 S.E.2d 819 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1946)
State v. . Harris
28 S.E.2d 232 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1943)
State v. . Bracy
1 S.E.2d 891 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1939)
State v. . Witherspoon
188 S.E. 111 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
182 S.E. 324, 208 N.C. 740, 1935 N.C. LEXIS 117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jenkins-nc-1935.