*1 IN COURT. THE SUPREME v. Horner. State the defendant guilty charged, as returned verdict assigning appeals, error. Attorney Bruton Patton, Assistant General
Attorney General for State. defendant, appellant. Seavy A. Carroll for right had no that the officer argues The defendant Curiam. Per was, a warrant and arrest was made without to search him because assignment defendant’s This constitutes the therefore, illegal and void. 1. of error No. in the trial legality of his arrest challenged the When relat- the evidence jury, of the heard
below, court, in the absence made, and found which the arrest was ing under to circumstances to believe that a grounds reasonable had fact that the officer felony had been committed. defendant, the defendant right to arrest the had the
If the officer person, and items found to search his right he had the concedes against him. in evidence would be admissible search below, the in the trial upon the evidence adduced that, holdWe duty to arrest the defendant right but the officer when the victim the assault and rob- question, on the occasion in being one to the officer as charge pointed out bery The defendant was there- 15-40 G.S.15-41. his assailants. G.S. robbery, of the lesser assault and tried convicted for after indicted offense. remaining exceptions assignments examination
A careful no prejudicial us the conclusion that error to the de- leads of error trial committed below. fendant Error. No v. JAMES MADISON HORNER WILLIAM GORDY.
STATE
(Filed May, 1958.) 99— Law 1. Criminal § light nonsuit, must be evidence considered On motion every State, giving fairly reasonable most favorable to the inference to be drawn therefrom. Law 101— 2. § Criminal competent support than a scintilla of If more there N. TERM, C.] Hokneb. *2 allegations indictment, duty in to submit the warrant or is it court’s jury.
the case to the 3. Same— conflicting, tending When the State’s evidence to is some incriminate tending exculpate repel defendant, and some to it to a is sufficient judgment nonsuit, jury. motion for of and submitted must be to the 4. Same— by The fact that a in con- confession introduced evidence the State exculpatory justify nonsuit, jury tains statements does not is since the compelled confession, may, not to believe the whole of the in their but discretion, part reject part. sound believe a and a 5. Homicide 3—§ person legally person’s A is if accountable the direct cause of a death is the natural result of his criminal act. 6. Criminal 9— Haw § persons When two or more aid and abet each other in the commission crime, principles equally guilty any irrespective previous of a all are of design. confederation 7. Same— presence, assisting, Mere with even the intention of cannot be to aiding abetting, assist, necessary, be unless the intention to inis way perpetrator some communicated to the actual of -the crime. Law 8. Criminal 101—§ accepted instrumentality an Circumstantial evidence is in the ascer- guilt tainment of truth if is sufficient to take the of issue to the prove reasonably to in it tends the fact issue or to conduces that con- logical legitimate fairly deduction, clusion as a and thus raises more conjecture. suspicion a than mere 9. Criminal Law 72—§ charge conspiracy, incriminating of In the a of absence statements by presence competent, made each defendant not of the other are against respectively, only making the statements. Homicide 8a— § generally Manslaughter voluntary involuntary divided into man- involuntary manslaughter slaughter; is where death results uninten- tionally, concerned, far so defendant is from an unlawful act on amounting part felony, negligently done, to or from his the a la-wful act being killing without- malice. guilt 11. Homicide 25— Circumstantial § of defendants’ jury. sufficient to he submitted homicide held to the to The State’s evidence tended show that both defendants and wom- intoxicated, highly an, went to the all home the defendants midnight, put bed, where the woman was to that about 5 :00 o’clock morning the defendants took the woman the next friend, the house of a taken, drinks that while where more were at this house the woman fell IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Hornes. groaned, yell a woman was heard twice off a cot and but also that yells help, tending from for house, came this with evidence show that morning from in the took the woman about 8:30 defendants that arms, yard, supporting under her a car in her house to the about woman was discovered country mile, put her, on a road and left that her out shortly road 2:00 a rut hospital afternoon, she died taken she was expert There was medical 4:00 the same afternoon. between body, testimony bruises her that death that deceased had numerous intestine, laceration from of her liver resulted of injury laceration death, prior to and that such two to hours occurred twelve the liver falling likely from off a cot. There have resulted could not referring defendants, also, evidence, one of was in a statement hap- friend, that “that is where time *3 compel, permit, pened.” but not was sufficient to Held: The legitimate was the death of deceased inferences that the reasonable her, beating, and that beat result of a terrible the beating, aiding present abetting and therefore other was upon jury as to both defendants was an indictment be submitted to the sufficient to manslaughter. charging G.S. 15-144. J., dissenting. Higgins,
Appeal J., November Term by Seawell, defendants from Criminal of 1957 CumbeRLANd. charging the defendants James upon a bill of indictment
Prosecution September with felon- on 28 1957 Horner and William Madison Lindsay. killing iously slaying and Sarah Guilty. jury The returned a verdict pleaded Not Both defendants charged. guilty that both defendants imprisonment defendants, of both both defend- of judgments From appeal. ants Assistant At- Patton, Attorney General, Love, Claude L.
George B.
Attorney
Sanders,
torney General,
the State.
T.R.
Staff
for
Rudolph
by:
Barrington and
Carl
Nance, Barrington & Collier
A.
appellant.
Jr.,
defendant,
Homer
Singleton,
Madison
G.
James
for
appellant.
Gordy defendant,
Seavy A. Carroll William
for
offered
evidence. The defendants
The
offered
none.
J.
State
Parker,
by
his motion
assigns
the denial
the court of
as error
Each defendant
the close of the
evidence.
nonsuit made at
State’s
judgment
for
of
sufficiency
evidence,
con-
challenge State’s
motions
These
giving
State,
to the
light
favorable to
most
sidered
fairly to
therefrom,
inference
be drawn
every
reasonable
the benefit
Kelly,
177,
243 N.C.
90
carry
jury.
to the
S. v.
S.E. 2d
the case
competent
support
evidence to
is more than a scintilla
If there
TERM, 1958.
N.C.]
Hobnek.
State v.
duty to sub-
indictment, it is
court’s
in the warrant or
allegations
227 N.C.
jury.
Kelly, supra;
Davenport,
v.
S. v.
S.
mit the case
475, 42
2d 686.
S.E.
conflicting
tending to incrimi
the State’s evidence is
When
—some
repel
exculpate
defendant —it is sufficient to
some to
nate and
nonsuit,
jury,
must
judgment
for
be submitted
motion
740;
647,
Edwards,
229 N.C.
2d
S. v.
N.C.
Robinson,
S.
50 S.E.
v.
555,
A
is not
whole of
confession. The
believe the
fact,
may,
discretion,
in their sound
be
twelve are
triers
reject
part
part.
Mangum,
323,
lieve a
245 N.C.
96 S.E. 2d
S.
39;
339;
Henderson,
735,
Ellis,
S. v.
N.C.
S. v.
447,
525;
2 S.E.
Overton,
S. v.
Mrs. Faircloth saw Sarah Moultrie a white lying in a wheel rut in a little sand three road some miles west of the corporate City limits of the of Fayetteville. This road is not main- tained the State. It is a remote The weather cold, woods area. raining. stopped car, got out, and was Mrs. Faircloth walked to Moultrie Lindsay rut, in the wheel and asked her who left her raised there. She her head a two, second or and asked for water. Mrs. Faircloth in her away, called Fayetteville. Sheriff’s Office p.m. Deputy About 2:55 two Sheriffs from Fayetteville, with Mrs. *4 Faircloth, arrived at the Upon scene. arrival saw Sarah Moultrie lying in a wheel rut in little this sand road. She was alive. The ground body around the up was torn with footmarks handmarks, ground and on the were three blood about 10 feet s,nots apart. She had on a dark up dress which was around waist. She was nude from her W-r waist down. One shoe was foot, off her and about to 2 feet from a 1% spot. blood The other shoe was on her foot. A purse woman’s was body. about 10 feet from her She head, shook her and tried talk, but the officers could not understand her. Her entire chin was bruised black, eye was swollen and almost closed with a little blood in its corner, her arms were bruised, and she bloody was between her legs. The officerscalled an ambulance, and sent her to the Cape Hospi- Fear tal, where she died between 3:50 and 4:00 o’clock the same afternoon. body of Lindsay, Sarah Moultrie shortly death, her sent morgue of the North Carolina Hospital Memorial Chapel in Hill, where some 17 to 18 hours after her death Dr. William Forrest, W. held the court to be expert a medical in the field of pathology, con ducted an examination autopsy of her body. After the clothes body, were removed from her the examination disclosed the following IN THE COURT. 346 SUPREME
State v. Horner. scalp measuring of part in the front the body: bruises on her a bruise diameter, upper eyelid on the left meas a bruise greatest inches in 21/2 hemorrhage with extending over the nose a uring about an inch and the lip, a bruise on chin eye, a lower the white of the measuring bruise right arm, 36 bruises diameter, bruises on the 2 inches in diameter, inches in arm, on the a on the left breast 6 left bruise right leg largest abdomen, 23 bruises on small bruises on the —the diameter, 21 greatest leg bruises on the left 4 inches in of which was thighs. largest 4 inches. blood was on her —the of which was Clotted quart of blood was found in the body opened, When its bottom cavity came from a tear in liver on abdominal in depth, inches measuring length front surface inches large intestine next to the liver. Dr. Forrest testified from a tear in body sitting right upper largest organ the liver is This woman’s abdomen, normally protected by and is lower ribs. below larger usual, than and it stuck down a little liver was little aspirated she had stomach con the ribs. The examination disclosed any An examina lungs. of bones were found. tents into her No fractures edges showed around of lacera microscopically liver tion inflammation, indicating that the amount of lacera tion a considerable from the time the laceration oc liver was several hours old tion analysis died, maybe An maybe 2 or 12 hours. until she curred enough she had body’s content showed of the blood for its alcoholic opinion was that the laceration Dr. Forrest’s alcohol to be intoxicated. were the real of the intestine causes of the and the laceration liver being Lindsay’s death, with the other factors contribu my “I Dr. Forrest testified: stated in tory. On cross-examination apparent this woman had autopsy report that it was received numerous sqrious was the laceration of injuries, the most of which blunt force hemorrhage peritoneal cavity and that the into the blood the liver with apparently perineum came from colon.” He thighs on the “I think be very examination: it would unlike on redirect also testified rolling ordinary off an upon her liver lacerated person to have ly for a my experience years pathology; nine plus I have cot or bed. liver, I many have never seen one re lacerations having seen falling out of bed.” person sult from evidence, any objection, a state- introduced without The State *5 Horner of 1 on October afternoon, made ment County presence of Cumberland Sheriff the office in Shortly sheriffs, the substance of which follows: deputy of three Crystal September 1957 he was at the Drive-In on 301 on 27 dark Clyde Taylor Fayetteville, up. when a car drove was driv- Street, South Gordy it were the defendant and Sarah Moultrie in car, and ing Gordy on seat on the floor.” over in car "was Lindsay, who TERM, 1958. N. C.] Horner. they told him had a woman in the of the he car, back seat could not (Horner) tell him who she He woman, was. went and looked at the and they get told them somewhere, get had better her and her to bed. About they night (Horner’s) 11:00 or 12:00 o’clock that carried her to his put Clyde Taylor her to bed. went back to town. He and Gordy stayed apartment with the woman in his until very 5:00 o’clock m. high. Gordy a. He was He in a double in his apartment, bed apartment. and the woman was in a cot in his At they 5:00 o’clock m. on a. carried the woman (Other home Eunice Hall. the record shows that the home of mile, less, Eunice Hall is about place or a little from the road where deputy Mrs. Faircloth and the two sheriffs saw Lindsay lying between 2:00 and 3:00 o’clockthat after- noon) . All three went in the Hall home. He identified himself to Eunice Hall, cooking Gordy who was breakfast. and the woman took some whiskey they drinks out of a bottle left, had he took one drink. While the Hall cooking, woman was still over, woman went laid cot, down on a and soon rolled off the cot onto the floor. She moaned He then groaned. breeches, noticed she had on no and that she bleeding, trickling blood legs. started down her He and Eunice placed her up, Gordy cleaned her the cot. on He and took her out house, placed her in the car her “the and carried down side where she later they got there, “they road found.” When started to put her , out of car . .. she started raising cain and said he couldn’t gave car, leave He her a shove, got they her.” ran and in his morning. Gordy off. It was 8:15 to 8:30 He and went to They House on Street, they got stayed White Robeson beer. minutes, there some 30 or 40 and went back to the home of Eunice Hall. Plymouth The defendant Horner had a automobile. On the 19&>1 Monday following Lindsay, the date of the death of Sarah Moultrie Baxley Deputy Sheriff examined this It had new seat cover on Next'day, seat. Tuesday, Baxley front went to where Horner work- ed!, they >andtold him wanted to with him at the talk office.Horner they driveway his courthouse, and as drove in the at the imagine you why Baxley picked you up?” said: “I know we Horner replied, “Yes, expecting it; yes- I you have been I saw out at the car terday.” changed Saturday. Horner said he had the seat cover Baxley Lindsay Saturday. woman In the office told died that Sheriff’s they Horner that knew he and had been with Sarah Moultrie Friday Saturday morning, on night the date of death. Billy replied: “Yes, Horner told me he his brother Horner, Taylor boy Billy Gordy carried her to his house about there; o’clock, put town, all back to her to bed came other Taylor. while They Gillespie than drive-in a messed around the *6 IN THE SUPREME COURT.
State v. Horner. Street, Crystal Drive-In, and he Billy Gordy went back to they stayed house and there until morning, 3:30 in they and that then taken her and went to the home of Eunice Hall. says, happened.' And he ‘That is where it imagine I two it is miles from the house of Horner to the of Eunice Hall.”
theOn same afternoon defendant Horner made a state- ment, Gordy Deputy the defendant Sheriff, made statement to Mrs. Guy, objection, L. which was admitted without and the L. substance night Friday September 1957, of which is as follows: On about 8:00 Clyde Taylor Crystal They p. m., he and were at the Drive-In. had whiskey. bought they got up There with Dink drinking vodka, been They Horner and Horner in another then went the defendant car. they Flamingo Gillespie Street, had several beers. He Bar town, and went and Dink Horner left in his drove around back Crystal Crystal came Drive-In. The defendant Horner back whiskey. Clyde Taylor bought more came back Drive-In. He Crystal spent night He said he “pretty well drunk.” Drive-In Clyde Taylor, riding around either with the defendant Horner night spent he and Horner at home then added the defendant of Eunice Hall. day Gordy made another statement following the defendant
On objection. The Guy, admitted without sub- L. which was to Mrs. L. drinking telling on this of it follows: After about considerable stance Taylor, Horner, himself, the defendant Friday Clyde night Taylor got him Clyde he said places, using cars, others at various confusing go.” Here it became Crystal Drive-In, and said: “Let's Taylor He Taylor’s car, and drove off. Clyde They got into to him. they Crystal Drive-In, or how far they left the know does not whether They put the woman they stopped, arfa Anyway, went. out, reached Eunice passed have because around, and he must rode shaking their him. m. He remembers 3:00 o’clock a. Hall’s house about got in the back drinks, went out of the couple He took This was in the car. The woman was Horner’s car. house, and the next They left Eunice Hall’s a. m. o’clock about 8:00 telling go him to lets Horner was he remembered thing Gordy The defendant House. at the White This was get the beer. place Sarah Moultrie at the pocketbook found was shown belonging to her. On cross- it as road, and identified his when he made first testified that Guy Mrs. examination things drinking night before and been her, he had statement occurred, he was not abso- to what hazy in his mind as very statement, he his second made saying. When he was lutely sure of what drinking. had been he he said living Huggins almost 1957 James 27 and On TERM, 1958. N. C.] *7 v. Hoxneb. State Eunice Hall. The distance be- home of the road from the straight across Saturday Septem- morning, 28 their houses is about 350 feet. On tween long Not o’clock. too before up go to work at 6:30 1957, got ber he porch. went out front It got up, and on his noise, this time he heard a holloing, straight it from across heard a woman came was dark. He holloing, This woman road, that house Eunice Hall’s. n “Help, calling three help He heard the woman’s voice somebody me.” house, of Eunice Hall’s light There on in the back times. was a yard. stayed He on his sitting like an automobile was looked he couple minutes. cross-examination porch front not over a On he houses close to Eunice Hall's testified there are three coming. couldn’t be sure from which house the noise was Saturday yards morning Chapman, On who lives about 35 C. C. house, got up prepare from Eunice Hall’s about 8:00 o’clock to break- drag fast. At this time he two men woman out of Eunice Hall’s saw house. men were hold- She looked to him like she was drunk. The two ing up arms, drag under the and he the two men her from the saw n doorto the edge porch. He did not then see Eunice Hall. The him, men and the woman were white. men’s backs were to recognize he did not percolating, either of the men. His coffee was he any window, turned from kitchen them He did see more. living moved into the house where he the third of March. He saw Eunice morning. Hall later that cross-examination C. On C. Chapman arms, said he saw two men take hold of the woman’s drag parked her to a testified, car. On redirect examination he morn- “on the ing September, of the 28th of 1957, a.m., before there was no 6:30 screaming holloing my at all.” On recross-examination he got up a.m.; said he slept soundly o’clock he night, all did not know happening what was before that time.
William Allen and his wife live in a house about 50 or 60 feet from the house of They Eunice Hall. at home on 27 and 28 Saturday 1957. morning, On 28 September 1957, they got up between 7:30 a. m. and 8:30 That morning a. m. Allen Mrs. saw the defendant Horner’s car in yard. Eunice Hall’s She does not know when his car left morning. She saw his yard car there in the later when the ambulance went after Sarah p. about 2:00 o’clock m. When the ambulance passed, Eunice Hall went to the Allen home. Wil- liam Allen said before he up Saturday this morning he heard cars going in and out and doors slamming. any No one did screaming holloing help for in night Allen house that or morning.
The State did not call Eunice Hall as a witness. A person is legally accountable the direct cause of a person’s death is the natural result of his criminal act. Knight, S. v. 247 N.C. 754, 259; 102 S.E. 2d S. Minton, v. 234 716, N.C. 2d 844. S.E. THE IN SUPREME COURT. v. Hoknek. established,
It is thoroughly that, regard law in this State without any previous persons design, confederation or when two or more aid principals and abet each other in the commission of a are crime, all equally guilty. Kelly, supra; Spencer, 604, S. v. 239 N.C. v. S. 670; 401, 323; Donnell, 2d Gosnell, S. v. 208 N.C. 181 S.E. S. v. 352; 604; 782, Beal, 278, 164 S.E. N.C. 154 S.E. S. N.C. S. v. 345; Hart, Jarrell, 722, 120 S.E. S. v. 141 N.C. 53 S.E. assisting, presence,
Mere even with intention of cannot be said *8 aiding abetting, assist, necessary, the intention to to be unless way perpetrator was in some communicated to the actual crime. 346; Kelly, supra; Ham, 94, Holland, S. v. S. v. 238 76 S.E. 2d S. v. N.C. 272; 354, 220 18 Johnson, 773, 234 67 S.E. v. N.C. 2d N.C. 2d S. S.E. 358. is v. Cash,
The State’s This Court S. 219 evidence circumstantial. quoted Merrimon, J., Brackville, C. v. 818, 277, 15 2d S. N.C. S.E. 284, is not 701, 11 S.E. as follows: “Circumstantial evidence 106 N.C. instrumentality in the ascertainment recognized accepted and, properly applied, when understood and truth, essential, but it is satisfactory gravest moment.” highly in matters of the sufficiency circumstantial evidence respect The rule in to the 380, 244 N.C. 93 carry Stephens, v. ease to the stated S. the intimation in some 431, are advertent to S.E. 2d as follows: “We involving evidence that to withstand of the decisions circumstantial must be inconsistent with inno a motion for nonsuit the circumstances except hypothesis that of every must reasonable cence and exclude 780, Simmons, guilt. given think the rule is in S. We correct N.C. 730; Johnson, 429, 154 904, quoting from v. 83 S.E. 2d S. which any tending prove the fact in issue or ‘If there be fairly logical legitimate reasonably its as a conduces to conclusion conjecture suspicion merely or deduction, and not such as raises " jury.’ it, the should be submitted regard to case pres- made in the by the defendants not statements made con- therefore, said is to be other, and, what each one of each ence against statements, making the against the one sidered with Gordy himself were said other. Horner night or 12:00 until apartment from 11:00 o’clock Lindsay in his they when carried her a. m. on 28 about 5:00 Hall’s Gordy they reached Eunice house said Eunice Hall. home of they morning. Both o’clock with the woman about 3:00 with woman in it about away house in a car from Eunice Hall’s that he lived about Chapman testified morning. C. o’clock that C. about 8:00 o’clock this and that yards Eunice Hall’s from out of Eunice Hall’s house to drag a woman morning he saw two men TERM, N. C.] v. Hokxer. parked Huggins straight James that he lived testified across Hall, away, road from the house of Eunice about 350 feet and that long
not too before morning porch, 6:30 this he was out on his front holloing straight road, heard a woman from “Help, across somebody help calling me.” He heard the woman’s voice three times. Tuesday following Deputy On the woman’s death Horner told Sheriff Gordy Raxley Lindsay and he carried woman to Eunice Hall’s staying apartment about 3:00 3:30 a. m. after their in his with hours, happened.” her some 4 and “that is Horner said Gordy Lindsay he and took woman out house, placed in the car and carried her down “the side road where she was later said, they “they found.” Horner also got when there started put , her out of the . . raising car . she started cain he and said couldn’t leave her.” He further gave shove, said he her a ran got they drove off. The officersfound a purse lying woman’s 10 feet from they woman, when found her in road, purse identified this her. belonging to Horner said that after putting road, the woman out went to House, the White beer, stayed minutes, there some 30 or 40 and went back to the Eunice Hall house. Mrs. Allen, William who lived about feet Hall, from Eunice she testified saw Horner’s car in Eunice yard, Hall’s *9 when Lindsay the ambulance went after the woman about p. 2:00 m. Between 2:00 and on the 3:00 o’clock afternoon of day this
Lindsay lying woman in was found in road a dying condition. She was dead at or before 4:00 o’clock on the same afternoon. An autopsy body day examination and of her the next showed numerous body, including bruises on her 9 small bruises on the abdomen, and a large tear in her a tear in liver and intestine next to the liver. Dr. Forrest, expert a medical of pathology, in field who conducted autopsy an body, gave examination and of the it opinion as his that the real cause of her death was the laceration of the liver and the laceration of the intestine. He also .he thought it very un- person upon likely rolling for a have her liver lacerated off an ordin- ary body cot or The had no bone fractures. Dr. bed. Forrest also microscopic the edges testified that a examination of laceration it that was several hours old from .the time liver indicated she occurred until died. laceration evidence, light 'considered most favorable opinion,
In our compel, legiti- does not the reasonable and State, permits, but from at least 5:00 a.m to 8:00 a. that m. mate inferences 'about 1957, Hall, Eunice the two defendants and Saturday, on only ones in the house of were the Eunice drunk, while de- Lindsay woman was that thede both Hall, that IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Hoe-Ner. gave beating, present, or both her a terrible caus- fendanits one cry somebody help me,” that one ing “Help, her to out -and aiding -her, present beat the other defendant was abet- defendant struck were to her ting beating, among the blows blows that intestine next to the causing of her liver abdomen lacerations iandi of her liver, these were the direct cause death lacerations that n about4:00 p.m. that afternoon. ¡and voluntary generally involuntary divided into Manslaughter is v, manslaughter. 398; C.J.S., Durham, 724, 201 N.C. 161 S.E. S. Homicide, Hovis, Sec. 37. This Court mid S. N.C. “Involuntary be, manslaughter S.E. 2d 564: has been defined 'Where concerned, unintentionally, results so far death as 'amounting part felony, from >anunlawful on his to a or from act -not ” killing negligently a lawful act done.’ The unlawful of a human being manslaughter. 689, 86 Street, without malice is S. v. 15-144. charges manslaughter. 2d 277. The indictment G.S. We State, light considering tire its 'evidence most conclude it, elements favorable to offered sufficient evidence all essential manslaughter against to withstand each defendant’s both defendants of nonsuit. judgment motion for .assignments
There are no of error to the admission or exclusion assignments formal, The other of error are and are over- evidence. ruled. Error.
No J., dissenting: few, This is I one of occasions which Higgins, -impossible my agree w-ith brethren. case find -September Friday 27,1957, just dark, the night, discloses Fayetteville. drive-in theater in At that Horner was at a up. Clyde Taylor him were the defend In the car with time Gordy seat -or.on the floor of -and woman who was .in the ant she def-endw Horner who was. The said he could not tell somewhere -get had better at her and said ant Horner looked *10 put they house Thereafter, her to Horner’s get her to bed. took morning next defendants took Taylor left. About five her to 'bed. three up, getting breakfast. The was Eunice Hall’s house. Eunice her to fully is in the thereafter stated drinking. place took more What did opinion. Court’s somewhere, probably theory that State It seems to be Lindsay to administered Sarah the defendants Eunice Hall’s death; call, finally “Help, her that caused beating which a terrible vicinity, came from the Hall in the me,” heard help someone beating of a she was deceased because from the but it came (cid:127) TERM, 1958. N.C.]
State Horner. being receiving; and, further, beating administered then that successfully find the by The asked the to the defendants. State calling person apparently position one to know above without says theory The its is happened firsthand what Hall. —Eunice (the house) is “There supported Horner’s statement: Hall happened.” say. The officer happened? what Horner didn’t Where certainly thing to According didn’t ask him. the State’s evidence enlarged happen at house—an obese woman with did the Hall an fall, groaned groaned.” “she liver fell off a cot and after the eight testified on One of the State’s witnesses that about o’clock Saturday morning dragged two men from the Hall house a woman following: However, questioning towards a car. further elicited the I doing helping porch.” the men off “What saw the woman Thereafter, driving defendants —Horner the woman to the —took place put where she was found about six hours her later and out put out, After her they “she to started raise cain her, get couldn’t leave she tried to back car.” Horner back, her evi- shoved dence, gained the car Such is the State’s off. part by interrogation defendants, none the but less the State’s evidence. That a woman should “raise cain” and try get terribly should with men who back car two beaten presents picture her little my is a too much out of focus for gallery. mental
The time Horner first saw the on woman she was either on Taylor’s the back seat or the floor car, “passed out.” Taylor injuries also in the received, car. What she had she any, prior how had received them to the time Horner first saw appear. Gordy her does not could not tell was; Horner who she Taylor, the owner of testify. was not called to There is not particle of evidence either defendant laid a violent hand Lindsay, except Sarah Horner. The evidence indicates all he did was away to shove her when tried to get she back in the car. suspicious thing most in the case, however, was Horner’s re-
moval of the seat covers of his car get rid the bloodstains. This occurred after it became known that had died. When it, asked about he told the officersand showed them the old seat covers. understandable, It is that after such a night, he would want remove But, all, important bloodstains. and the unanswered ques- injury tion how occurred that caused the blood. Where, when, injuries how the fatal were received, the evidence does not disclose. speculation The answers are in the realm of guess. Had she been injured Taylor appeared when and Gordy with her at the drive-in? Was injured by she the fall from the cot? What happened to during — *11 IN THE SUPREME COURT. v. Lee and Taut v. Lee.
Blackwell time left her and the the time the defendants the six hours between is, “True it alive, questions. unanswered she still are was discovered the as accusing finger point the seems to an evidence strong- suspicion, crime, and to excite somewhat perpetrator the it too to surmise guilt, apparently his but leaves much ly perhaps, of foregoing are the words of support to a conviction.” assumption Stacy Harvey, of v. the Justice the case late Chief They 2d 472. fit this case. putting this woman out in agree I can defendants’ conduct say shabby indeed, supports to man- the rain was but too for me. I vote to slaughter is much reverse. LEE BOBBY GLOVER HOWARD RAY BLACKWELL J.
W. LEE and BOBBY GLOVER. TART v. HOWARD RAY WARREN G 1958.) (Filed May, Evidence 46— 37: § § 1. Automobiles highway Testimony at the scene that were no obstructions on the there competent sign except post at the is south shoulder of when accident object presence any physical solely of or absence refers tendency view, might to have obstruct the driver’s or condition and by Principles is, therefore, of law a statement of fact the witness. relating competency opinion of whether an identified evidence as object inapposite. driver’s to obstruct the view was sufficient are 40: Evidence 42c— 2. Automobiles § § plaintiff tending by Testimony of a one statement made substantiate competent of as evi- version the accident- one defendant’s substantive defendant, properly favor of but is excluded other dence such plaintiff other defendant. 17—§ 3. Evidence (in plaintiffs’ witness, he testified a state- cross-examination as to (cid:127) plaintiff, plaintiffs’ and on redirect ment made examination coun- leading questions permitted purpose eliciting to ask for sel were plaintiff’s’ testimony the witness told counsel somewhat dif- version the admission. Held: It within ferent the of of discretion of permit leading questions court to trial on redirect examination purpose refreshing adverse for their recollection witness offending party may impeach rule witness without that a not witness, response own and further the instant case his the witness’s leading questions prior impair testimony partic- did his on that subject. ular