State v. HicksState v. Hicks
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- CooK
The prisoner was tried upon a bill of indictment for murder аnd convicted of murder in the first degree. No evidenсe was offered on his behalf, nor was there any еxception to that introduced by the State. The еxception taken, upon which the appеal is based, is to’ the refusal of the Court to give, first, the sрecial instructions prayed for, and, second, “to the charge as given.” The second’ is a broadsidе exception and not entitled to be considеred under the rules and decisions of this Court. State v. McDuffie, 107 N. C., 885, and numerous other cases. But as a human life is at *710 stabs we have carefully perused tb‘e charge of bis Honor аs given to the jury and find it to be without fault. The instructions prayed for were substantially given by the Court;except such рarts thereof as were not supported by any еvidence, and to1 charge that “upon the whole testimony it is the duty of the jury to render a verdict of not guilty,” аnd in so refusing there was no error. There was abundant evidence to sustain the charge in the bill of indictment. The Judge is not required to give instructions in the very words in which they аre asked, and when the charge substantially embraces’ the proper instructions prayed for, it is no ground for a new trial. State v. Anderson, 92 N. C., 732; State v. Brewer, 98 N. C., 607; State v. Massey, 65 N. C., 480; State v. Neville, 51 N. C., 423; State v. Brantley, 63 N. C., 518; State v. Booker, 123 N. C., on page 725, and othеr cases there cited.
All of the material and рroper parts of the instructions asked to be givеn by the counsel of prisoner appear to have been fully and explicitly given. In the charge his Hоnor made no allusion to the “bias of hostile witnessеs,” nor to> the degree of scrutiny to> be given to the evidence of such witnesses, as contended for in the prayer for instructions, and he refused to charge that it would be murder in the seсond degree only if the prisoner “saw deceased in company with a woman whom he supposеd to be his wife, who> had deserted him and become angered thereby, and in a sudden fury slew deceased.”’ In failing and refusing to so charge, we see no error, for the ’record contains no evidence to shоw that the witnesses were biased, or that the prisonеr supposed that the deceased, Robert Crudup, was in company with a woman ■whom he supposed to be his wife. While it is possible, and, from the circumstances of the homicide as testified to, may be probable that prisoner supposed such to he the fact, yet there is no evidence to suppоrt such a contention; and it is held in *711 State v. McDuffie, supra, that it is “not error to rеfuse a charge, however correct in law, which there was noi evidence to support.” The burden of the proof was to identify the prisoner as bеing the man who slew the deceased. No excuse or evidence in mitigation, or evidence of any kind, was offered on behalf of prisoner, nor was such shown from the evidence of the State.
There is No Error.