State v. . WilliamsState v. . Williams
- Reporters:
- ,
- Before:
- Walker
The evidence of the State was to the effect that Cyrus Jones, a mail carrier from Swansboro, who also operated an automobile for hire, was shot on the highway about a mile and one-half from the town of Swansboro, at or about seven o‘clock on the afternoon of 5 August, 1922. After he was shot, he drove his automobile back to the home of a neighbor, John Midgett, where he stopped, his wife, at the time, being away from home. Midgett answered his cries for help and asked him what was the matter, to which he replied that he had been beaten to death, and there was no chance for him, and asked that he might be taken out of the car and into his home. Midgett then asked him who had beaten him, and his reply was, “Collins, Williams, and Doves.” There was ample evidence to the effect that Willie Hardison was known in the community as Collins.
The news of the mysterious shooting of Jones was noised throughout the community, and his neighbors hastened to his bedside. He told those standing about to get the doctor — that there was no chance for him to live, and to different witnesses he stated that Collins, Williams, and Doves shot him in an effort to take his car. He languished from Saturday until the following Wednesday night, mostly in a subconscious state of mind, when he died of meningitis, caused by a gun-shot wound inflicted in the left side of his head with a size four or six shot.
Hardison testified that some time prior to 5 August, Jones, who operated an automobile for hire, had taken him and the three defendants to a place called Marines, some ten or twelve miles away, to a dance; that Jones had an understanding with his passengers that they were to leave at 12 o‘clock, and, failing to get them together at that time, he left them at Marines. Hardison said that the three defendants in this case told him that they intended to “get” Jones for leaving them at Marines; and on Friday night, before Jones was shot the following day, Hardison, the three defendants, Williams, Frank and Fred Dove, and one Clyde Sanders met at a tobacco barn belonging to one Nash Bell, where Hardison was curing tobacco, and that they then and there agreed upon and planned the killing of Jones; that Hardison was to tell Jones the following morning that the three defendants wanted him (Jones) to take them to a place called Stella on Saturday afternoon, and that they were to meet at or near a colored church a little more than one mile from the town of Swansboro. It was agreed that the gun with which they were to kill him was to be hid in the woods, and a bush was to be thrown in the road so as to indicate to the defendants where the gun was concealed. When this point was reached, they were to stop Jones on the pretext that they had some whiskey hid in the woods and wanted to get it.
Hardison said that he saw Jones on the morning of 5 August and made the arrangements, and it was agreed that he (Jones) would come
There was evidence on the part of the State that the tracks around the automobile indicated that several persons had been in and around the car. There was further evidence to the effect that the three defendants were seen coming out of Swansboro in the direction of the colored church, and that the defendants Doves were seen within forty-five or fifty yards of the colored church about six o‘clock, and that the defendant Williams was seen a little before this time coming out of Swansboro.
There was some evidence to the effect that one of the Doves had stated during the week that he expected to be in New York the following week; and Williams had also stated to onе of his companions at the sawmill that he did not any more mind killing a man than he would a snake.
It will be necessary to state some of the evidence a little more particularly so as to fairly and fully present one or two serious questions in the case, which we will now proceed to do.
Dr. J. P. Henderson, witness for the State, testified: “Am a practicing physician at Swansboro; practiced since June, 1915; knew Cyrus Jones; called to see him the evening of 5 August this year; arrived
Cross-examination: “From character of wound, the probable position of person who fired the shot with reference to the body was at a point opposite the left side of the man‘s head. Shot seem to have entered direct, going slightly up. Probed some of the shot wounds, but not the inter-cranial wound, one inside the skull. No powder stain on person that I noticed. Impossible to tell just how many shot struck him. A great many, though, not a few. At a place indicated shot seemed to have gone in a wad; others just single shot wounds. Outer table of skull was broken. Dr. Jones made an incision in the scalp just at base of posterior extremity of left parietal bone, the bone that makes up the vault of the skull on the left side. Found outer table penetrated; did not ascertain whether shot entered brain at that point — probably they did. Large one of wounds or bruises on body, about an inch and a half long, nearly inch wide; small one near inch square, about two and half inches apart. Skin what we term grazed; bruised, but not broken enough to bleed — bruised in a scratchy way. Appeared to be same clothes on him when shot. Noticed no break of garment where bruises were. I said yesterday he was partially conscious — best I remember.
Mrs. Cyrus Jones, widow of deceased and witness for the State, testified: “Live at Swansboro; saw my husband after dark after he was shot, close to an hour after he was shot; he was unconscious; was notifiеd at my father‘s about a mile from the village. When I got to him he was conscious, but I was overcome and unable to go to him for about 25 or 30 minutes, and when I then saw him he was unconscious. Couldn‘t say he regained consciousness before he died. Sunday afternoon appeared to be somewhat conscious. Witness details reason why she thinks consciousness may have returned to him. He died Wednesday after dark, around eight o‘clock, after Saturday on which he was shot. Right around two o‘clock on his return from Maysville he left about $85 with me, on day he was shot, and kept $10. He was in the habit of bringing money from Maysville and leaving it with me when he got checks cashed for people or he would give it to them at the postoffice when they lived in the village, or would leave it with Mr. Davis. He was mail carrier and ran automobile for hire. Frequently carried money for people to Maysville and back. Got checks cashed for people in the village right often. I suppose this was generally known in that section.”
John Midgett, witness for the State, testified: “Live at Swansboro; knew Cyrus Jones; saw him afternoon of 5 August somewhere around seven o‘clock. Was eating supper; heard a car pass going in, heard somebody hollering, and jumped up and ran to the door; looked down road; jumped out and ran down there and then saw it was Mr. Jones, and I ran up to him and said, `Cy, what is the matter?’ (Each defendant objected and excepted to the question and answer and each part of the answer separately.) He says, `I am beat all to pieces. Take me and carry me in the house and get a doctor. There ain‘t no chance for me.’ I took him out and carried him to my house and asked him, `Cy, who beat you?’ (Each defendant excepted to question and answer.) He said, `Collins, Williams, and Dove.’ I said, `Cy, what did they beat you about?’ He said they were taking his car. I asked him where he wanted to go, and he said `To your house,’ and I carried him and set him on the bed and he called for water and I gave
“Q. Who did he say beat him up, if anybody? (Objection and exception by each defendant to the question and the answer.) Witness answered, `Collins, Williams, and Dove.’ He remained in my house until he died; was conscious when the doctor got there. Lived about twenty yards from me; died Wednesday, seven minutes after eight o‘clock following 5 August.”
Cross-examined, the witness testified: “His statement to me about who shot him was made about seven o‘clock. I told it thаt night — don‘t know exactly what time nor to whom. Don‘t remember whether I told it to the first people who came. When I first asked him, he said Collins. Don‘t know how many Collinses in that neighborhood, nor how many Doves. Some people call him Willie `Collins,’ and some call him Hardison. Knew his name only as Collins up to the shooting. Told crowd there what the sick man had said. Don‘t know that I told it as soon as I got there. Went with the crowd that night to try to ferret out things. Went to John Dove‘s twice. Went first and examined guns — found nothing wrong, none of Dove‘s guns had been shot. Went back the second time and took Frank and Fred Dove down before the mayor, and guess the mayor examined them separately, and examined whatever evidence they could get. The boys then went back home and were arrested later. I went with them to George Williams’ house that night. They examined the guns and found no gun there that had been shot; found only one gun. We examined Dove‘s, Williams‘, and Jimmie Harper‘s houses that night and found no freshly shot guns. We examined the guns. Harper and his son Henry came to the door at his house. I think they examined colored people‘s houses all around there that night after the wounded man had told me what he told and after I had told it to others. There was in the neighborhood at that time John Dove and his brother and his son Jimmie and Frank and Fred Dove, all of them and the old man were there. We went to John Dove‘s brother‘s house the night of the shooting. He livеs about 350 yards from the place of the killing, I suppose. Suppose John lives something like half a mile — maybe nearer a mile. I guess Frank and Fred lived with John. Was only with the crowds that went to Dove‘s and Williams.’ I declined to talk with counsel for the Doves about the matter after I had been subpoenaed by them. The reason was I didn‘t want to tell about it until I got on the stand where they could all hear. Was not under supoena [subpoena] by State
R. W. Freeman testified: “Live at Swansboro; saw Jones on evening of 5 August; was down town and coming back home, got right to the gate. My wife came and said somebody hollered in distress, ran down the road, and got in a few step of him, and John Midgett asked me to get the doctor, and said Cy was beat all to pieces.” (Defendants, in apt time, objected on the ground it was hearsay; overruled; each of the defendants excepted.) Court said: “What the witness has testified to is not substantive evidence, but is to corroborate the witness John Midgett. If you find it does so, you being the judges.” Witness further testified, “I got the doctor as quick as I could; Cy told the doctor that if they didn‘t do something for him he was gone.”
“Q. What other statement did you hear him make?” (Objection by defendants; overruled, and defendants excepted to the question and answer.) “A. He said Collins and Dove murdered him or beat him. This was before the doctor arrived. He was in the house sitting up on the side of the bed. I heard his brother ask him who did it.” “Q. What did he say?” (Objection by defendants to question and answer; overruled, and defendants excepted.) “He said Collins. That is all he said that time. His condition was very bad, bleeding. Looked like he had been beat to death and shot. The car was shot and bloody. The crossbars of the car that hold the top had been shot, and I think some shot had penetrated through the top. Nothing the matter with the car except the shot through the top and cross-piece, except it was bloody all over the seat; pretty near a quarter inch deep in blood. There must have been a gallon or more blood in the car. Also saw two puddles where he was shot. This was next day. Must have been a half gallon at each place. Was blood on the inside of the car and indentation of the brace — two puddles of blood on the outside. Brace looked like some solid wad had struck it; like two or three shot might have gone together. Brace kind of battered up. Was there in five or ten minutes after Jones was taken to Midgett‘s. First heard of it 50 or 75 yards away. I ran to it. Think Jones was conscious. Am not a doctor. Couldn‘t swear he was conscious. Must have stayed an hour before I went home; wаs there off and on till one or two o‘clock. Didn‘t see bruises on body.”
I. E. Rogers testified: “I live at Swansboro; saw Jones night of 5 August; first saw him sitting on his bedside at John Midgett‘s with his head hanging over, moaning and groaning — bloody all over — looked like he had been terribly beaten. (Exception.) I sat by him and said,
Willie Hardison, witness for the State, testified: “My name is Willie Hardison. Knew Captain Jones nearly two years. Captain Jones hasn‘t taken me to Marines. I have only been there once and came back with Hash Bell and his wife and two other men.” The witness had been asked if Captain Jones ever took him, Frank Dove, Fred Dove, and George Williams to Marines prior to 5 August. Being asked what the defendants said to him with reference to Cyrus Jones leaving them at Marines, said, “They told me that they had it in for him and were going to get him; that George Williams, Frank Dove, Fred Dove, and Henry Harper told him that, two or three weeks before Jones was killed. They said he carried them down to Marines to a dance and left them, and they had to get some one to bring them back; told me at church on Sunday two or three weeks before he was killed. Told me nothing else but that they had it in for him and were going to get him. I saw them after that, maybe Sunday, when I went to church and Sunday School. Didn‘t see them subsequent to that when they had a conversation relative to killing Captain Jones.” Being asked by counsel, “Did you meet with them at the tobacco barn? Now just go ahead and state to the jury all you know about Fred Dove, Frank Dove, and George Williams being in the plot to kill Captain Jones.” Witness answered, “They didn‘t tell me anything about a plot to kill him; just asked me to ask him to take them to Stella to do some trading.” Witness being further requested by counsel for State, “Well, just go ahead and tell everything they said to you at the barn.” Said, “I was at the barn that evening when Nash Bell came from Greenville, and I came and told him I did not have any oil to cure tobacco with, and just before dark Fred Fenderson came from Bear Creek and Nash Bell was fixing to go to town in his car, and he went with Fred and when he got back he called me and I went to the house, and he told me to come in and get supper, and I told him that I had had supper, and while I was there Frank Dove, Fred Dove, Cheevey Williams, and Red Hаrper and Henry Harper came there, four boys.” The court: “What Williams did you say?”
Cross-examined by Dove‘s counsel: “Since they put the stick on me, I have told the thing only two ways — one to save my life until the court, that George Williams did the shooting. Told in the presence of Sheriff Williams and counsel of Doves the same thing I have told today. Said it was done with the man‘s gun I stayed with; said it when I carried the gun to George Williams’ house. Neither of Dove boys ever went off with me on trip to Marines. Never knew either of them to go on trip with Captain Jones; only what they told me. Never knew either one to do that. Told you that Frank Dove, Fred Dove, George Williams, and Henry Harper got me to see if Mr. Jones on Saturday would take them to Stella to do some trading. Didn‘t swear yesterday in my trial it was to Maysville. Am certain I said
Captain Merritt testified: “I live at Swansboro; knew Cyrus Jones; was with him afternoon of 5 August from Belgrade to Swansboro, bringing me home in his new car. I was sick, and as we went he slowed down just before we reached the colored church, and I thought it mighty strange, and after slowing down he went a little further and slowed again, and directly he stopped and saw that boy.” (Pointing to Willie Hardison.) Q. “You can tell what he said to that boy.” (Objection by the defendants, and admitted by his Honor only for the purpose of corroborating the witness Willie Hardison). A. “Willie Hardison said, `We are ready, we are waiting for you right now.‘” (Defendants objected and excepted to each part of the answer severally.) Witness testified further: “Hardison was standing on the colored church grounds. Captain Cyrus drove on and put me out and turned around and went on back; took a straight course in the direction Willie Hardison was. I went to the place where Mr. Jones was shot the next day. It was on the road that turned up there by the church; I never went up the road at all — just rode on by the church. It is off the main road on what is known as the Belt Road, I guess. I didn‘t wait up there often. I didn‘t see either one of the defendants, Williams and Doves, up there when Captain Jones brought me. Have known the defendants Doves ever since I have been around there, some 40 years, I think. Am not referring to the boys, had no dealings with them, was referring to their father, John. His character is good so far as I know. They have chartered my boat and I have had frequent dealings with the older ones; not acquainted with the reputation of Willie Hardison.”
There was other and volumnious [voluminous] testimony tending to show the guilt of the defendants, and each of them, and that they conspired and acted together at the time of the homicide to murder Cyrus Jones, and that
The evidence for the defendants tended to show that they were not at Marines with Cyrus Jones, and had no feeling against him or resent toward him, and no reason to murder him, and that they did not kill him or assist in doing so, not even being present when it was done.
Upon this evidence and the dying declarations of the deceased, the jury convicted all of the defendants of murder in the first degree. Defendants appealed from the verdict and judgment. After stating the facts: This case was carefully tried, and the rulings during the course of the trial were well considered and made with strict regard to law and procedure.
The charge of the court was very full, learned, and explicit, and was perfectly fair and just to all the defendants, being, if anything, rather more favorable to them than they had any reason to expect. The jurors, if they heeded it, which they seem to have done, could not possibly have mistaken its meaning and significance. The contentions of the respective sides were very fully arrayed, nothing material or of importance being omitted therefrom. The law of the case was explained to the jury with great care and correctness, and the statute fully complied with in this respect.
Upon the evidence, including the dying declarations of the deceased, the jury cоnvicted all of the defendants of first degree murder, that is, Williams and the two Doves, Hardison having been before convicted of the same crime.
Upon exceptions reserved by the defendants they appealed to this Court, and now ask us to review the entire record, so far as indicated by the specific exceptions, which we will now proceed to do.
It will be timely and appropriate at this stage of the opinion to repeat with some degree of fullness what the learned judge stated to the jury, in his charge, with reference to the dying declaration of Cyrus Jones, as the competency of what is called “his dying declaration” should be finally settled before proceeding further to discuss the case in the light of the evidence. It is as follows: “There has been admitted in evidence, gentlemen of the jury, testimony tending to show statements made by Captain Jones, which the State contends were made in the fear of his
Reviewing the various exceptions taken to the judge‘s rulings and to his charge, we find none of them that is at all tenable. It would be idle and useless to discuss them seriatim, as each and every one of them is manifestly without any solid or genuine merit, and yet we do not feel that in so important a case, involving the lives of three men, and possibly four, we should fail to make some more specific reference to them than we have already done. We will therefore consider the prisoners’ exceptions with some more particularity, though not taking them up one by one.
Counsel for the defendants move the Court for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, because of the fact that one of the witnesses has changed his story of the crime since the trial. If there
Exception one, defendants abandon. Exceptions two, three, four, six, seven, and eight relate to the challenge of jurors for cause by the defendants, for that each of said jurors challenged had served upon the jury within the past two years. This special venire was drawn from the jury box with all the formalities of drawing a regular jury, and were summoned by the sheriff.
In the fourth exception, when the juror Frazelle was challenged for cause on the ground that he had served on the jury within the past two years, and this cause for challenge was disallowed, counsel for the defendants undertook to peremptorily challenge this juror without being required to make it known in open court, so that the other jurors would not be affected or prejudiced by the challenge, if made openly and in their hearing. The court promptly, and properly, we think, stated to the counsel that if he would challenge the juror peremptorily, it must be done in open court, and it would be allowed, but that if counsel did not see fit to make the challenge openly, it would not be allowed. The disagreement between counsel for the defendants and the presiding judge as to what happens is, of course, settled by the finding of the court as to what it was which we have stated.
Exceptions nine, ten, eleven, twelve, fourteen, fifteen, sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen are grouped in defendants’ brief as relating to dying declarations. The only objection raised by the defendants in their argument is that the statement of the deceased should not have been received, for that they are very close on the line of demarcation, and that the deceased was speaking, perhaps, unconsciously, and, undoubtedly, responding to leading questions, if he made any responses at all, but the evidence seems to be to the contrary. The deceased had driven his car a mile and a half back to Swansboro, and, before he was taken from his car, he told the witness Midgett that he was beaten all to pieces; that there was no chance for him to live, and that Collins, Williams, and Doves were the responsible parties. There was no evidence that he lapsed into unconsciousness until later on in the night, after which he made no statements whatever. The statements of the deceased as to who shot him come directly under the rules laid down by this Court for the admission of dying declarations. S. v. Peace, 46 N.C. 251; S. v. Whitt, 113 N.C. 718; S. v. Quick, 150 N.C. 820.
The thirteenth exception is complained of on the ground that it is hearsay, but there the witness Midgett was only stating to the witness Freeman what the deceased had said to him, and, if hearsay, it is absolutely immaterial and harmless, because it is merely a repetition of what the witness Midgett had just testified to.
Exceptions 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26, taken to the charge of the court, are grouped in the brief of the defendants and based on the ground that they form expressions of opinion. The judge, more than once in his charge to the jury, tells them that he has no opinion on the
The defendants could not have been harmed by the statement of the court that it was alleged, and not denied, that Cyrus Jones was dead, because the evidence of witness after witness was to the effect that he died on Wednesday night, 9 August, and never was any suggestion made by the defendants that he was not dead. Hence, the judge was merely stating a contention of the State, which was uncontradicted by the defendants; and if error at all, it was certainly harmless, and this Court does not concern itself with harmless errors. Hulse v. Brantley, 110 N.C. 134; Alexander v. Trust Co., 155 N.C. 124.
Exceptions 27, 28 and 29 seem to be abandoned by the defendants in their brief, and well might they be abandoned because in the court‘s charge, to which these exceptions are noted, his Honor tracked the law, as repeatedly laid down by this Court, to the very letter.
S. v. Whitson, 111 N.C. 695, answers the 28th exception, and S. v. Baldwin, 152 N.C. 828, the 29th and 30th exceptions. In the last named case, Justice Hoke, writing the opinion of the Court says: “Malice may arise from personal ill-will or grudge, but it may also be said to exist (in a legal sense) wherever there has been a wrongful or intentional killing of another, without lawful excuse or mitigating circumstances.” This is implied or legal malice.
Exception 31: As to this exception, the court was undertaking to define how malice may be shown, and again the court followed the rules of this Court in defining malice. S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563; S. v. Cameron, 166 N.C. 379.
Exception 32: This exception seems to be abandoned by the defendants in their brief, and properly so.
Exception 33: In this exception defendants complain for that the court did not go far enough and sufficiently qualify the charge given. This is exactly what the court did do, for, after telling the jury that they should receive the testimony of the defendants and their relatives with
Exception 34: This exception is properly abandoned.
Exception 35: Here again the defendants complain, for the first time, about the judge stating the contentions of the State. If, in stating these contentions, he erred, which it seems he did not do, the objection should have been made at the time, but none was made. S. v. Kincaid, supra.
Exceptions 36 and 37 are abandoned by the defendants, and rightly so.
Exception 38: Here the defendants complain that his Honor erred in failing to tell the jury that the defendants must have been present at the time of the killing, in order to make them guilty of murder in the first degree. If any error here, we think that it was cured by thе language of the court used immediately before the language excepted to. Immediately before this exception the court said, “If you find from the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the shot which killed Cyrus Jones was fired by Willie Hardison, in furtherance of a plan and design on his part, with malice and with premeditation and deliberation, and that the defendants, or either of them, were (when the fatal shot was fired), then and there present, aiding, encouraging and abetting him, it will be your duty to convict them, or such of them as you find so present, guilty of murder in the first degree.”
Exceptions 39 to 46, inclusive, are abandoned by the defendants.
Exceptions 47: This exception relates to the refusal of his Honor to tell the jury that it was dangerous to convict exclusively on the unsupported testimony of an accomplice. The refusal of the court was on the ground that it was covered in the general charge, and this relates to exceptions 47 and 48. In his Honor‘s general charge to the jury, he said: “The jury may convict upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, though it is dangerous and unsafe to do so, but if the testimony of the accomplice, taken with other facts and circumstances in the case, carries conviction to the minds of the jury, then it is their duty to convict, remembering that the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of the guilt of the dеfendants before they can convict.” What more could he have said, or how better could he have said it?
Exception 49: Here the court gave the instructions asked for by the defendants, and they now complain that he added thereto a correct statement of the law, contending in effect that the trial judge was unfair in correctly stating the law, because everybody knew the defendants were innocent. Counsel for the defendants in this exception, while complaining of the court, seem to lose sight of the fact that the State has some
Exception 50 and 51: In exception 50 the defendants asked for certain instructions to the jury, and his Honor gave these instructions as set out in exception 51, stripped of surplus verbiage, the language of the court includes everything asked for by the defendants except that it was stated more succinctly and pointedly.
Exception 52: This prayer for instruction was covered in the general charge. His Honor charged the jury at some length on the caution and scrutiny that they should apply to the testimony of interested witnesses.
Exception 53: This prayer for instruction was declined on the ground that it was given in the general charge, but the defendants say they fail to find it in the general charge. But it is there, as will appear in the charge, as set out on page 86 of the record, next to the last paragraph on that page, and is included within the 28th exception of the defendants, which they abandoned in their brief, and is in language as follows: “I further charge you that it is your duty to receive the statements (dying declarations) with care — carefully, but not superstitiously, remembering there was no cross-examination at the time they were made by the deceased.”
It appears that the judge not only fully covered the requests of the defendants in his general charge to the jury, but that he correctly stated the law, and conformed, at least substantially, to the language of this Court as used in S. v. Whitson, 111 N.C. 695.
Exception 54: This exception is purely formal, and taken to his Honor‘s refusal to set aside the verdict, and needs no more special reference.
The defendants seem to complain here, and for the first time, that they did not get a fair trial. They seem to believe that the whole case would have been changed and the verdict would have been different if a man by the name of Ramp Jones had not escorted the prisoner, Willie Hardison, from the jail to the court room. The counsel contends that Hardison was under the influence of Jones. While the suggestion is absolutely new, and is heard here for the first time, we call attention to the fact that if they had any ground for it defendants should have complained to the trial judge, and requested proper instructions, whereas no complaint was made, and, so far as the record discloses, the defendants discovered for the first time, after the verdict, that they had not had a fair trial, for the reason indicated.
In the affidavit introduced for the defendants Frank and Fred Dove, and filed in this Court, on the motion for a new trial, they set out the fact that an attorney visited Willie Hardison while he was confined in the jail of Craven County, and interviewed him with reference to what took place at the killing; that Hardison told him, on that occasion, that
The evidence as to the dying declarations of Cyrus Jones having been admitted, it is only necessary to state that it was clearly competent evidence, because at the time the most essential part of it, and also a separate and independent part, was let in, the declarant had stated that he would certainly die, or used equivalent language, if not stronger language, when he said “there was no chance for him” to live, that he had been beaten to death. The judge, therefore, properly ruled in the declaration, although the declarant may afterwards have changed his mind and believed that the doctors might save him. It is evident, though, that Cyrus Jones, at the time when he declared as to the facts and circumstances of the homicide, had abandoned all hope, and that he spoke under the solemnity and in the very presence of impending death, which supplies the usual tests, as to the truth of what he stated, that is, an oath and opportunity of cross-examination by the party against whom his declarations are used.
There was some suggestion in the argument that defendants could not be convicted of murder, as principals, in the first degree, nor as principals in the second degrеe, as aiders and abettors. This contention was based upon the supposition, clearly not allowable, that the evidence showed that Willie Hardison was the principal, and that the defendants were only accessories before the fact, having before hand merely advised or counsel the commission of the homicide by him, and not having participated in the actual commission of it, as being present, aiding and abetting, Willie Hardison, the principal. But this position is manifestly without sufficient support in the evidence, when carefully considered, and the learned presiding judge correctly instructed the jury in regard to it. If the State‘s evidence is credible, and this was for the
It was suggested, but only so, that perhaps Hardison, inspired by a yearning desire to save his own life, testified falsely as to the others, but this is met by what was said by Cyrus Jones, in his dying declarations, and is fully and completely contradicted by it. If he (Jones) told the truth — and he had every reason to tell the truth by reason of his serious situation at the time, and the truth of his words are confirmed by the solemn realization of impending death — there can be no doubt as to the guilt of the prisoner. But any consideration such as suggеsted by the prisoners is for the jury in impeachment of the State‘s evidence, or is a matter which should be addressed to the pardoning power and not to us, as we must be governed by the facts as the jury have found them.
There are practically sixty exceptions in this case, many of them of grave importance, requiring full consideration and discussion, and we have, in one way or another, adverted, at least, to those which could not be ignored, and were decisive of the case. It extended the opinion of the court far beyond ordinary limits, but this could not possibly be avoided if the case was given proper and adequate treatment, and is to be fully justified when not only the unusual importance of the case, and the gravity of the questions raised, are taken into account, and also the seriousness of the result, when four lives must be surrendered in the vindication of the law.
We do not recall any other contention of the prisoners that would either excuse, mitigate, or extenuate their crime, and upon a most careful perusal of the whole record, we are satisfied that none such exists.
The prisoners have been tried before an able and learned judge, by a jury fairly and impartially selected according to law, and there is no ground, or even plausible pretext, upon which we can base a reversal or modification of the judgment.
No error.
Cited: S. v. Barnhill, 186 N.C. 451; S. v. Green, 187 N.C. 468; S. v. Levy, 187 N.C. 587; S. v. Ashburn, 187 N.C. 730; S. v. Hartsfield, 188 N.C. 358; S. v. Sinodis, 189 N.C. 571; S. v. Griffin, 190 N.C. 135; S. v. Jackson, 199 N.C. 326; S. v. Casey, 201 N.C. 625; S. v. Bright, 215 N.C. 539; S. v. Holland, 216 N.C. 615; S. v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 164; S. v. Smith, 237 N.C. 24; S. v. Hooper, 243 N.C. 431