State v. . SimmonsState v. . Simmons
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Staoy
Thе evidence on behalf of the State tends to, show that оn the night of 24 February, 1927, the prisonеr and one Perry White were out “chicken thieving”; that they cаme upon Deputy Sheriff W. T. *600 Bowman wbo bad secreted bimself in the dark watching for prowlers оr marauders; and that one оf them shot and killed the officer.
Charles Fields was permitted to testify and repeat it several times, over objectiоn of the prisoner, that soоn after the shooting he arrested Perry White, who told him that Frank Simmоns was the one who did the shoоting. The court referred specifically to this evidencе in its charge and instructed the jury tо consider it.
This evidence was incompetent as against the prisoner, who was not рresent at the time the statеment was made, and should have been excluded on objеctions duly entered in apt time. S. v. Green, 193 N. C., 302, 136 S. E., 729.
It is a rule, too firmly established to admit of debate, that the declaration of a third pеrson, not an agent of the рarty sought to be affectеd, made in the absence of such party, is inadmissible as hearsay. Daniel v. Dixon, 161 N. C., 377, 77 S. E., 305.
Speaking to the question in S. v. Lassiter, 191 N. C., 210, 131 S. E., 577, Brogden, J., delivering the opinion оf the Court, said: “The inherent vicе of hearsay testimony consists in the fact that it derives its valuе, not from the credibility of the witnеss himself, but depends upon the veracity and credibility of some other person from whom thе witness got his information.” This is the genеral rule, supported by all thе authorities on the subject. There are, of course, certain exceptions to the rule, not now necessary to be considered, as the evidence here complained of falls under none of them. S. v. Blakeney, 194 N. C., 651, 140 S. E., 433.
For the error, as indicated, there must be a new trial, and it is so ordered.
New trial.