State v. . EdwardsState v. . Edwards
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Clark
The only exception to evidence, the exception to tire prisoner’s confession, is without merit. There was no evidence of duress, in fact, the evidence was that there was none, and that the prisonеr was cautioned, and confessions made to- an officer without duress are competent. State v. Whitfield, 309 N. C., 876, and cases cited. Besides, it was in no sense a confession, but ai denial. The prisoner, besides those of his prayers which were given, asked the Court to charge:
“1. In no aspect of the testimony and under no reasonablе inference that can be fairly drawn from it, are the prisoners guilty of murder in the first degree.”
“2. There is no deliberation or premeditation in this case^ and at most the jury can only convict of murder in tire second degreе.”
“3. If the jury believe that the deceased was appointed policeman for a special рurpose to perform duty at the depot only, them he had no right to arrest the prisoner for boister *1053 ous сonduct and loud cursing upon tbe streets away from tbe depot, without a Avarrant, and his act in stopping the prisoners and ordering them to go back Avitb him would be in law an assault, and the prisoners had the right to defend themselvеs against said assault.”
These prayers were properly refused. There was ample evidence оf premeditation to be submitted to a jury. As to the last prayer, the Mayor of the town testified that the decеased had been a policeman two and a half or three months, and his duties were at the depot рart of the time. There was no contradictory evidence, the Mayor’ merely saying that the duties of the deceased as policeman did not take up all of his time. Nor Avas there any evidence of an assault by the deceased. The prisoner and his companions were violating the town ordinance by loud usе of profane, language upon the streets; the deceased, who had on his policeman’s uniform and cap and billy, spoke to them about it; the prisoner cursed him,whereupon deceased ordered him to come and go up town Avith him, as he could do without a warrant, (State v. Freeman, 86 N. C., 683), whereupon he was shot at several times by one or more of the crowd and killed. The only question arising upon the testimony is as to Avho’ in that party did the fаtal shooting.
The prisoner further asked the Court to charge that “there is no evidence that the homicide was committed Avithin the corporate limits of the town of Concord.” This the Court refused,and when reading over thе evidence he reached the testimony of Dr. Archey, he said: “Here is evidence that the homicide wаs committed within the corporate limits of Concord, and there is other evidence of it, to which I will call yоur attention.” This is no expression of opinion “whether a fact is fully or sufficiently proved” which is forbidden by tbe Act of 1796, now-Code, sec. 413, but was merely calling *1054 the attention of the jury to evidence, the existence of which was denied by tire prisoner’s prayers for instruction.
The Court in addition to many charges, not excepted to, instructed the jury that “it made no difference whether Kearns (deceased) was acting in his official capаcity as policeman, or whether the homicide was committed within or with-cut the corporate limits of thе town of Concord, if the jury are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoners killed the deceased upon a previously formed design to kill him, and under the circumstances deposed to by the witnesses uрon the stand ; the jury may find the prisoners guilty of murder in the first degree, even though the jury are satisfied that the deceased was a private citizen.” There was ■strong evidence of a preconceived and avowеd purpose on the part of the prisoners to kill the deceased, and if they did so, upon the uncontrаdicted circumstances, a® above stated, the •charge just recited was not erroneous.
His Honor, аfter giving several prayer‘s for instructions, asked by the defense*, was asked to charge: “If the jury are in doubt as tо which of the prisoners shot the deceased, and have a reasonable doubt-as to whether Edwards shot the deceased, or whether Carr shot him, then the verdict should be not guilty, as to both.” This the Court refused to give till he hаd added: “Unless the jury shall be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a conspiracy on thе part of the prisoners to kill the deceased, or that they were aiding or abetting each other.” The evidence justified the addition, which Avas properly made. State v. Anderson, 92 N. C., 732.
The other exception, “the failure of thе Judge to state in ■a plain and concise manner the evidence given in the case and ■declare and explain the law arising therefrom,” Avould not be justified even by State v. Boyle, 104 N. C., 800, which besides has been several times in effect overruled. State v. Beard, 124 N. C., 811. The case seems to have been left to’ the jury *1055 in every pba‘se presented by the evidence. Tbe motion in this Court for a new trial for newly discovered evidence was properly withdrawn. Such motions are not entertained in appeals in criminal actions, as has been often held. State v. Starnes, 94 N. C., 973; State v. Gooch, Ibid, 987; State v. Starnes, 97 N. C., 423; State v. Rowe, 98 N. C., 629.
The murder appears to have been brutal and premeditated. The prisoner’s cause fias been presented with zeаl and ability by his counsel in this Court, as doubtless it was in the court below, but we find no error of which the prisoner can complain.
No error.