State v. . Simmons

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Simmons

152 S.E. 774, 198 N.C. 599, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 421

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 16, 1930

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 152 S.E. 774 (State v. . Simmons) 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. . Simmons, 152 S.E. 774, 198 N.C. 599, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 421 (N.C. 1930).

Pincite

Opinion

. Stáoy, C. J.

The evidence on behalf of the State tends to, show that on the night of 24 February, 1927, the prisoner and one Perry White were out “chicken thieving”; that they came upon Deputy Sheriff W. T. *600 Bowman wbo bad secreted bimself in the dark watching for prowlers or marauders; and that one of them shot and killed the officer.

Charles Fields was permitted to testify and repeat it several times, over objection of the prisoner, that soon after the shooting he arrested Perry White, who told him that Frank Simmons was the one who did the shooting. The court referred specifically to this evidence in its charge and instructed the jury to consider it.

This evidence was incompetent as against the prisoner, who was not present at the time the statement was made, and should have been excluded on objections duly entered in apt time. S. v. Green, 193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.

It is a rule, too firmly established to admit of debate, that the declaration of a third person, not an agent of the party sought to be affected, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. Daniel v. Dixon, 161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.

Speaking to the question in S. v. Lassiter, 191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577, Brogden, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The inherent vice of hearsay testimony consists in the fact that it derives its value, not from the credibility of the witness himself, but depends upon the veracity and credibility of some other person from whom the witness got his information.” This is the general rule, supported by all the authorities on the subject. There are, of course, certain exceptions to the rule, not now necessary to be considered, as the evidence here complained of falls under none of them. S. v. Blakeney, 194 N. C., 651, 140 S. E., 433.

For the error, as indicated, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

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

. Stáoy, C. J.

The evidence on behalf of the State tends to, show that on the night of 24 February, 1927, the prisoner and one Perry White were out “chicken thieving”; that they came upon Deputy Sheriff W. T. *600 Bowman wbo bad secreted bimself in the dark watching for prowlers or marauders; and that one of them shot and killed the officer.

Charles Fields was permitted to testify and repeat it several times, over objection of the prisoner, that soon after the shooting he arrested Perry White, who told him that Frank Simmons was the one who did the shooting. The court referred specifically to this evidence in its charge and instructed the jury to consider it.

This evidence was incompetent as against the prisoner, who was not present at the time the statement was made, and should have been excluded on objections duly entered in apt time. S. v. Green, 193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.

It is a rule, too firmly established to admit of debate, that the declaration of a third person, not an agent of the party sought to be affected, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. Daniel v. Dixon, 161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.

Speaking to the question in S. v. Lassiter, 191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577, Brogden, J., delivering the opinion of the Court, said: “The inherent vice of hearsay testimony consists in the fact that it derives its value, not from the credibility of the witness himself, but depends upon the veracity and credibility of some other person from whom the witness got his information.” This is the general rule, supported by all the authorities on the subject. There are, of course, certain exceptions to the rule, not now necessary to be considered, as the evidence here complained of falls under none of them. S. v. Blakeney, 194 N. C., 651, 140 S. E., 433.

For the error, as indicated, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

152 S.E. 774, 198 N.C. 599, 1930 N.C. LEXIS 421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-simmons-nc-1930.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack