State v. . Wall

172 S.E. 216, 205 N.C. 659, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 42
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided January 10, 1934·Published·Cited by 13 cases

Opinion

Stacy, O. J.

The announcement of the solicitor, made before entering upon the trial, that the State would not ask for a verdict of more than murder in the second degree, was tantamount to taking a nolle prosequi on the capital charge. S. v. Gregory, 203 N. C., 528, 166 S. E., 387; S. v. Brigman, 201 N. C., 793, 161 S. E., 727; S. v. Spain, ibid., 571, 160 S. E., 825; S. v. Hunt, 128 N. C., 584, 38 S. E., 473.

In this state of the record, the testimony of the witness, Shackie Belton, even if regarded as indefinite or too remote in point of time, could not be held for reversible error, though admitted over objection of defendant, for the element of premeditation and deliberation, necessary to be shown on the capital charge, had been removed from the case *661 by tbe action of tbe solicitor, and botb tbe unlawfulness of tbe homicide and malice on tbe part of tbe defendant were presumed from tbe intentional billing of tbe deceased witli a deadly weapon. S. v. Bailey, ante, 255.

Nor can tbe introduction in evidence, and exhibition to tbe jury, of deceased’s bloody clothes be regarded as harmful or erroneous. It is not a valid ground of objection to evidence that it tends to prove tbe fact in question more conclusively when tbe article to which it refers is exhibited, instead of being left to tbe description of witnesses. Such objection fails to -take into account 'the difference between tbe strength of evidence and its competency. S. v. Westmoreland, 181 N. C., 590, 107 S. E., 438; S. v. Vann, 162 N. C., 534, 77 S. E., 295.

Tbe remaining exceptions discussed on brief present no new question of law or one not heretofore settled by a number of decisions. In no view of tbe case could tbe demurrer to tbe evidence have been sustained; and tbe charge is free from valid objection. Tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.

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

State v. . Wall, 172 S.E. 216, 205 N.C. 659, 1934 N.C. LEXIS 42 (N.C. 1934).

172 S.E. 216 (State v. . Wall) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State v. Hickey
346 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
State v. Jones
225 S.E.2d 549 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1976)
State v. Cutshall
180 S.E.2d 745 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Atkinson
179 S.E.2d 410 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Rogers
168 S.E.2d 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Peele
161 S.E.2d 568 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1968)
State v. Miller
158 S.E.2d 47 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. Bass
105 S.E.2d 645 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
State v. Speller
53 S.E.2d 294 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
Crissman v. . Palmer
35 S.E.2d 422 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1945)
State v. . Hampton
186 S.E. 251 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1936)