State v. . ThomasState v. . Thomas
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- DeviN
Tbе evidence for the State tended to show that the defendant shot and hilled the decеased without provocation. Defendant’s evidencе tended to show some elements of self-defense, or, аt least, mitigation. He testified thаt the deceased began the shooting, and that he therеupon fired three shots with fatal result.
Under a charge freе from error the jury rejected the defendant’s plea of self-defense, and convicted him of murder in the second degree. The evidence fully wаrranted the verdict.
Defendant’s assignments of error relate to the rulings of the court on thе admission of testimony. We have examined each of thе defendant’s exceptions with care, and reach the conclusion that none оf them can be sustained. While sоme of the testimony was elicited in response to leading questions, the evidence was competent and the ruling of the trial judge was a matter of discretion. S. v. Buck, 191 N. C., 528, 132 S. E., 151. The suggestion of prejudice therefrom is not borne out by the record. S. v. Hargrove, 216 N. C., 570, 5 S. E. (2d), 852. Objection to the question propounded to a witness as to the general reputation оf the deceased for truth аnd veracity was propеrly sustained, (S. v. Hairston, 121 N. C., 579, 28 S. E., 492; Edwards v. Price, 162 N. C., 243, 78 S. E., 145; S. v. Pearson, 181 N. C., 588, 107 S. E., 305; S. v. Nance, 195 N. C., 47, 141 S. E., 468), and exception thereto is untenable as thе record does not show what answer the witness would have given.
Exception to the ruling of the court in sustaining proffered testimony of defendant as to his conversations with others relating to the deceased prior to the homicide is without substantial merit.
The dying declaration of the deceased was properly admitted in evidence. S . v. Whitson, 111 N. C., 695, 16 S. E., 332; S. v. Jordan, 216 N. C., 356, 5 S. E. (2d), 156.
In the trial we find
No error.