State v. Willis

121 S.E.2d 854, 255 N.C. 473, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 616
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedOctober 11, 1961
Docket74
StatusPublished
Cited by22 cases

This text of 121 S.E.2d 854 (State v. Willis) 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. Willis, 121 S.E.2d 854, 255 N.C. 473, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 616 (N.C. 1961).

Opinion

Moore, J.

Is an attempt to commit suicide a crime in North Carolina? This necessarily raises the further question: Is suicide a crime in this jurisdiction? “To constitute a criminal attempt, it is necessary that the act which is attempted be a crime.” 1 Wharton’s Criminal Law and Procedure (1957), s. 72, p. 155.

“ ‘It is manifest,’ said the General Assembly of North Carolina in 1715, ‘that the laws of England are the laws of this Government, so far as they are compatible with our way of living and trade.’ ” 17 N.C. Law Review, 205. At all times since 1715 the common law has, within certain limits, been recognized as the law of this jurisdiction. The General Assembly has declared that “All such parts of the common law as were heretofore in force and use within this State, or so much of the common law as is not destructive of, or repugnant to, or inconsistent with, the freedom and independence of this State and the' form of government therein established, and which has not been otherwise provided for in whole or in part, not abrogated, repealed, or become obsolete, are hereby declared to be in full force within this State.” *475 G.S. 4-1. The term “common law” refers to the common law of England.

At common law suicide was a felony. Blackstone explains the matter thus:

“Felonious homicide is . . . the killing of a human creature, of any age or sex, without justification or excuse. . . . This may de done either by killing one’s self, or another man.
“. . . (T)he law of England wisely and religiously considers, that no man hath a power to destroy life, but by commission from God, the author of it: and, as the suicide is guilty of a double offence; one spiritual, in invading the prerogative of the Almighty, and rushing into his immediate presence uncalled for; the other temporal, against the king, who hath an interest in the preservation of all his subjects; the law has therefore ranked this among the highest crimes, making it a peculiar species of felony, a felony committed on one’s self. ... A felo de se therefore is he that deliberately puts an end to his own existence, or commits any unlawful malicious act, the consequence of which is his own death . . . The party must be of years of discretion, and in his senses, else it is no crime.
“But now the question follows, what punishment can human laws inflict on one who has withdrawn himself from their reach? They can only act upon what he has left behind him, his reputation and fortune: on the former, by an ignominious burial in the highway, with a stake driven through his body; on the latter, by a forfeiture of all his goods and chattels to the king: hoping that his care for either his reputation, or the welfare of his family, would be some motive to restrain him from so desperate and wicked an act.” Chitty’s Blackstone, 19th London Ed., Book IV, pp. 189, 190. See also: 10 Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3d Ed., s. 1395, p. 727; Hales v. Petit, 1 Plowden 253, 75 Eng. Rep. 387 (1562); 1 East P. C. 219 (1803); 1 Hale P. C., c. XXXI, pp. dll-418; 3 Holdsworth’s History of English Law, p. 315 (1923).

In 1824 by 4 Geo. IV, c. 52, s. 1, burial of suicides in the highway with stake driven through the body was forbidden in England, and it was provided that burial should be in churchyards or other usual burial places, but without religious ceremony and between 9:00 and 12:00 o’clock at night.

The matter of punishment seems to give the courts, in states where the common law is recognized, the greatest difficulty in deciding whether or not suicide is a crime. Nearly all agree that suicide is malum in se. In New York suicide was recognized as “a grave public wrong,” but was not considered a crime. Hundert v. Commercial Travelers’ Mut. Acc. Ass’n of America, 279 N.Y.S. 555 (1935). The Illinois court recognized that suicide was a felony at common law, but *476 stated that it “had never regarded the English laws as to suicide as applicable to the spirit oí our (their) institutions.” Burnett v. State, 68 N.E. 505, 510 (1903). In Alabama, Massachusetts, New Jersey and South Carolina it has been held that suicide is malum in se and a crime, though not punishable if self-murder is accomplished. Southern Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Wynn, 194 So. 421 (Ala. 1940); Commonwealth v. Mink, 123 Mass. 422 (1877); State v. Carney, 55 A. 44 (N.J. 1903); State v. Levelle, 13 S.E. 319 (S.C. 1891). Several states, including Iowa, Indiana and Texas, have no common law crimes. State v. Campbell, 251 N.W. 717, 92 A.L.R. 1176 (Iowa 1933); Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Rice, 52 N.E. 2d 624 (Ind. 1944); Grace v. State, 69 S.W. 529 (Tex. 1902).

“By the English common law suicide was a felony. As, however, forfeitures are not allowed in the United States, and as the common-law punishment of forfeiture is the only punishment that would be available, the offense in the United States is not punishable; yet it may be said that generally in the states of the Union suicide is criminal and is recognized as such whenever the question has a bearing collaterally.” 24 A & E Encyclopedia of Law, Suicide, s. II, pp. 490, 491.

Our Constitution and statutes have repealed and abrogated the common law as to suicide only as to punishment and possibly the quality of the offense. Suicide has perhaps been reduced to the grade of misdemeanor by reason of the following statutory provision: “A felony is a crime which is or may be punishable by either death or imprisonment in the State’s prison. Any other crime is a misdemeanor.” G.S. 14-1. See also Commonwealth v. Mink, supra. Our Constitution forbids both ignominious burial and forfeiture of estates as punishment for crime. “The following punishment only may be known to the laws of this State, viz: death, imprisonment with or without hard labor, fines, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under this State.” (Emphasis added). N. C. Constitution, Art. XI, s. 1. Forfeiture, as punishment, has not had any force in this jurisdiction since 1778 when it was declared what part of the common law should be in force here. White v. Fort, 10 N.C. 251, 264.

So it must be conceded that suicide may not be punished in North Carolina. But in our opinion this fact does not change the criminal character of the act. The common law considered the offense to have been committed in the lifetime of the offender. It is explained thus: “. . . it is observable, that this forfeiture has relation to the time of the act done in the felon’s lifetime, which was the cause of his death. As if husband and wife be possessed jointly of a term of years in land, *477 and the husband drowns himself (Hales v. Petit, supra); the land shall be forfeited to the king, and the wife shall not have it by sur-vivorship.

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

Related

Comm. to Elect Dan Forest v. Emps. Pol. Action Comm.
Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2021
In Re Extradition of Exoo
522 F. Supp. 2d 766 (S.D. West Virginia, 2007)
Solorzano v. Bristow
2004 NMCA 136 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 2004)
State v. Sines
579 S.E.2d 895 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2003)
People v. Ryan N.
112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 620 (California Court of Appeal, 2001)
Compassion In Dying v. State Of Washington
79 F.3d 790 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Compassion in Dying v. Washington
79 F.3d 790 (Ninth Circuit, 1996)
Gwathmey v. STATE THROUGH DEPT. OF ENVIR.
464 S.E.2d 674 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1995)
People v. Kevorkian
527 N.W.2d 714 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1994)
State v. Gibbs
436 S.E.2d 321 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1993)
Wackwitz v. Roy
418 S.E.2d 861 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1992)
Hill v. Nicodemus
755 F. Supp. 692 (W.D. Virginia, 1991)
United States v. Varraso
21 M.J. 129 (United States Court of Military Appeals, 1985)
State v. Arnold
208 S.E.2d 646 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1974)
State v. Jones
179 S.E.2d 433 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1971)
State v. Rogers
168 S.E.2d 345 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1969)
State v. Lackey
155 S.E.2d 465 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
Ruffin v. Bailey
254 F. Supp. 599 (E.D. North Carolina, 1966)
Lovedahl v. North Carolina
242 F. Supp. 938 (E.D. North Carolina, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 S.E.2d 854, 255 N.C. 473, 1961 N.C. LEXIS 616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-willis-nc-1961.