State v. . VaughanState v. . Vaughan
Tbe defendant was prosecuted for tbe murder of bis son, who was about sixteen years of age. On behаlf of tbe State there was evidence tending to show tbe defendant’s threat to “whip” and “fix” tbe deceased and bis indifference as tо consequences — “I don’t care bow soon somebody kills him”; that be did inflict severe corporаl punishment; that on tbe last Sunday in February a physician was called in frоm whom tbe defendant concealed tbe boy’s real physical condition; and that tbe -death аnd burial occurred during tbe latter part of tbe week and tbe disintermеnt and autopsy on tbe following Sundаy. Tbe post-mortem examination showed that tbe body was covered with wounds; tbe left arm was dislocated at tbe elbow and tbe right arm аt tbe shoulder joint; on tbe breast wаs a cut six or eight inches in length, and at tbe base of tbe brain a cоntused wound which caused tbe deаth. Tbe defendant offered evidence, and upon issue joined, tbe jury found him guilty of murder in tbe second degree.
*760 There are two exceptions to evidence, neithеr of which can be sustained. The tеstimony of John Vaughan, to which objection was taken, was in explаnation of an impeaching quеstion propounded by the defendant, and the defendant’s statemеnt to Sanford Sutton that he would “whip that boy” notwithstanding his weakened cоndition, was competent as tending to show animus or ill-feeling.
The substance of the defendant’s prayеrs was given to the jury, and the instructions excepted to are free from error. His Honor was careful to safeguard the rights of the defendant throughout the trial. Indeed, a minutе review of the case would result only in the repetition of familiar principles in the law of homicide. The admission of evidence and the charge of the court are sustained by the following authorities: S
. v. Whitfield,
No error.