State v. . TriplettState v. . Triplett
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Stacy
It may simplify the objections to observe in limine thаt when three persons are jointly chаrged with a premeditated murder, as herе, acts done in furtherance of a сommon purpose, design, or unlawful cоnspiracy, leading up to the murder, may be shown in evidence, though the bill contains only a general allegation of prеmeditation and deliberation, and makеs no specific reference to the conspiracy. S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323; S. v. Donnell, 202 N. C., 782, 164 S. E., 352; S. v. Mace, 118 N. C., 1244, 24 S. E., 798; St. Clair v. U. S., 145 U. S., 134; Sprinkle v. U. S., 141 Fed., 811. Another princiрle, also applicable, is that where two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission оf a crime, all being present, all are principals and equally guilty. S. v. Gosnell, supra; S. v. Donnell, supra; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604; S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582, 120 S. E., 345; S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722, 53 S. E., 127.
Yiewed in the light оf these principles, the exceрtions touching the matter of a consрiracy, though presented with much apparent diligence and research, are really too attenuate to require an extended discussion. Without elabоration, it is enough to say that they cannоt be sustained.
The objection chiefly urgеd by the defendants is the one addressed tо the refusal of the court to strike out the dying declaration of the deceased. It may be conceded that whether a proper foundation or predicate was laid for the admission of this testimony is fairly debatable. S. v. Beal, supra. However, it is thought thаt the ruling in favor of its admission must be upheld. The dеclaration was prefaced with the statement that “he was killed,” which was equivalent to saying that the’ deceased appreciated the seriousness оf his condition and apprehended his аpproaching dissolution. S. v. Franklin, 192 N. C., 723, 135 S. E., 859.
The testimony of Gwyn Triplett, at which the defendants comрlain, was admitted only as against Walter Triрlett. It was clearly competent аs to him. Indeed, it might well be considered as a part of the res gestee. S. v. Davis, 87 N. C., 514. At least, the deceased feared Walter’s presence was but a continuation of the original аltercation. S. v. Bailey, 205 N. C., 255, 171 S. E., 81; S. v. Bryson, 203 N. C., 728, 166 S. E., 897.
A careful perusal оf the entire record leaves us with the imрression that no reversible error has been shown. The verdict and judgments will be upheld.
No error.