81 S.E. 689 | N.C. | 1914
After stating the case: The prisoners introduced as a witness Mrs. Minnie Foster, who gave material testimony in their behalf. The State, for the purpose of impeaching her, handed her a letter. The case states: "This letter was lost by the prosecutors during the trial, and could not be produced. The letter in substance was very affectionate and very solicitous that Will Harris should visit Mrs. Foster at times when Foster, her husband, was absent, and was sufficient to indicate that the writer was seeking amorous and illicit intercourse with Harris. Counsel read the letter at length to witness, and she said: `I never wrote it to Will Harris for myself, and nobody need say I did. I wrote it for Fairy, if it is the one I wrote. I was in jail once; stayed pretty near five weeks. They never have had me in the lockup.'" If the witness had denied that she had written the letter, the matter being collateral to the issue, her answer would have been final and could not have been contradicted. But she admitted its authorship, adding merely that she wrote for her daughter, Fairy Foster, and the letter itself disclosed that she was having or wished to have illicit relations with Will Harris, in the absence of her husband. This, of course, tended to impeach her character and to impair her credibility. It was just as competent, for this purpose, as if she had admitted having a conversation with Harris to the same effect. Her statement that she wrote for her daughter tended further to impeach her, as the letter, on its face, conclusively proved the contrary. It was the contents of the letter, written by her, that impeached her character. This Court said in S. v. Davidson,
We have conceded the general rule, as stated in 1 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 449, cited by the prisoner's counsel, as follows: "It is a well-settled rule that a witness cannot be cross-examined as to any fact which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, merely for the purpose of contradicting him by other evidence, if he should deny it, thereby to discredit his testimony. And if a question is put to a witness which is collateral and irrelevant to the issue, his answer cannot be contradicted, but is conclusive against him." See, also, S. v. Patterson,
In this case, though, Mrs. Foster was impeached by her own admission that she wrote the letter and the very nature of its contents. The letter, *322 therefore, was not introduced to contradict her, but merely to show the bearing of her admission as to its authorship.
The prisoners relied on S. v. Holly, supra, but their contention in this respect grows out of a misapprehension as to the scope of that decision. There it was proposed to show by a witness, introduced by the prisoner to prove his good character, that it was rumored Holly had killed his wife. This was going into details. It was competent to test the value of the witness's opinion as to his general character, but not to call for hearsay as to specific acts. This is an eminently just rule, as will appear from these reasons, stated by Justice Allen in that case: "The defendant did not testify in his own behalf, but he was entitled to introduce evidence of his good character, as a circumstance tending to show the improbability of his having committed the crime alleged against him. S. v. Laxton,
The second exception was taken to the refusal of an instruction that there is no evidence of Robertson's guilt. He was the aggressor and gave the first provocation that brought on the fight. The evidence showed that he handed the pistol to Ceph Foster, who killed the deceased with it, and also told him to shoot. He was not without fault, but, on the contrary, was the first and principal offender, and he therefore lost the benefit which otherwise he might have derived from the principle of self-defense. S. v.Blevins,
The third exception, taken to the refusal of the court to charge that Foster had the right, in his own house, to prevent the commission of a felony, is also untenable. He had that right, it is true, if exercised in a proper and lawful way; but it must be remembered that Milton Patterson was retreating when he first fired, and then Foster continued to shoot at him when there was absolutely no necessity for doing so in order to protect himself or his home, and he showed no remorse, after the killing, for his cruel act, but was wholly indifferent to the homicide, expressing even satisfaction at the tragic result. The manner of the killing by Foster, his acts and conduct attending its commission, and his declarations immediately connected therewith, were evidence of express malice. 21 Cyc., 889, 897, 924, 925; S. v. Jarratt,
There is no circumstance in the case which can be fairly regarded as upholding the contention that Foster was defending "his castle" or his property or any member of his family. It was nothing but a common brawl, for which he and Robertson, his codefendant, were mainly (364) responsible. The principle that a man may defend his home against unlawful and unwarranted attacks has no application to these facts. 21 Cyc., 828; 1 Bishop Cr. Law (11 Ed.), 614, 806, and sec. 636; S. v. Taylor,
The fourth assignment of error to the charge of the court, that if defendants fought willingly they cannot avail themselves of the principle of self-defense, is sufficiently answered in S. v. Garland,
See, also, S. v. Yarbrough,
There was no error in that part of the charge relating to the presumption arising from killing with a deadly weapon, and as to the burden of proof. The court stated that the law presumes malice from such a killing, and that, nothing else appearing, it would be murder in the second degree, and the burden is upon the prisoners to satisfy the jury as to any matter of justification, excuse, or mitigation. This is the correct rule.S. v. Yates,
The last assignment of error to the instruction of the court, as to the different verdicts that could be returned, according as the jury might find the facts to be, is not supported by the record. The judge distinctly told the jury, several times, that they could acquit the prisoners, and the last instruction was intended merely to inform them how they could find in the event that they did not acquit. The charge must be construed as a whole. S.v. Exum, supra.
A careful review of the record has disclosed no error which entitles the prisoners to another trial.
No error.
Cited: S. v. Pollard,