State v. . Norton

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Norton

82 N.C. 628

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 5, 1880

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 82 N.C. 628 (State v. . Norton) 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. . Norton, 82 N.C. 628 (N.C. 1880).

Pincite

Opinion

Ashe, J.

We are not aware of any principle of evidence upon which the declarations of the defendant, made two weeks before the assault, were admitted. We cannot see how they could explain or elucidate the transaction. They certainly were not admissible on the ground of being part of the res gestee. If the defendant had been indicted for murder, for an assault with intent to kill, for a conspiracy or forgery, or any other offence where the scienter or the quo animo constitutes a necessary part of the crime charged, such acts and declarations of the prisoner as tend to prove such knowledge or intent, are admissible, notwithstanding they *630 may in law constitute a distinct crime. Dunn v. State, 2 Ark., 229; Thorp v. State, 15 Ala., 749.

But in our case neither malice nor intent nor knowledge nor motive forms any ingredient of the offence. It is a simple assault and battery, and the guilt or innocence of the defendant depended upon the facts and circumstances immediately connected with the transaction. And we cannot conceive how the previous threats or declarations of the defendant could affect the trial except to prejudice the minds of the jury against him.

The cases of the State v. Huntley, 3 Ired., 418, and State v. Howard, ante, 623, are the only authorities cited for the admissibility of the evidence. Huntley’s case is distinguishable from ours. lie was indicted for an affray in going about armed in an unusual manner to the terror of the citizens, and his threats against the lives of different persons were admitted in evidence because they formed a part of the res gestse. And in Howard’s case the previous conversation of the prisoner was admitted because it affected him with a knowledge of the common reputation of a fact, that was material on the trial to-show the motive for tho commission of the crime.

We are of the opinion the court committed an error in receiving the evidence. A venire de novo must be awarded the defendant. Let this be certified to the superior court of Madison eounty that further proceedings may be had in conformity to this opinion and the law of the state.

Error. Venire de novo.

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

Ashe, J.

We are not aware of any principle of evidence upon which the declarations of the defendant, made two weeks before the assault, were admitted. We cannot see how they could explain or elucidate the transaction. They certainly were not admissible on the ground of being part of the res gestee. If the defendant had been indicted for murder, for an assault with intent to kill, for a conspiracy or forgery, or any other offence where the scienter or the quo animo constitutes a necessary part of the crime charged, such acts and declarations of the prisoner as tend to prove such knowledge or intent, are admissible, notwithstanding they *630 may in law constitute a distinct crime. Dunn v. State, 2 Ark., 229; Thorp v. State, 15 Ala., 749.

But in our case neither malice nor intent nor knowledge nor motive forms any ingredient of the offence. It is a simple assault and battery, and the guilt or innocence of the defendant depended upon the facts and circumstances immediately connected with the transaction. And we cannot conceive how the previous threats or declarations of the defendant could affect the trial except to prejudice the minds of the jury against him.

The cases of the State v. Huntley, 3 Ired., 418, and State v. Howard, ante, 623, are the only authorities cited for the admissibility of the evidence. Huntley’s case is distinguishable from ours. lie was indicted for an affray in going about armed in an unusual manner to the terror of the citizens, and his threats against the lives of different persons were admitted in evidence because they formed a part of the res gestse. And in Howard’s case the previous conversation of the prisoner was admitted because it affected him with a knowledge of the common reputation of a fact, that was material on the trial to-show the motive for tho commission of the crime.

We are of the opinion the court committed an error in receiving the evidence. A venire de novo must be awarded the defendant. Let this be certified to the superior court of Madison eounty that further proceedings may be had in conformity to this opinion and the law of the state.

Error. Venire de novo.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 N.C. 628, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-norton-nc-1880.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack