{
  "id": 8662112,
  "name": "STATE v. ROSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1901-12-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "575",
  "last_page": "578",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "129 N.C. 575"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "122 N. C., 1007",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8663384
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/122/1007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N. C., 405",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658400
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/120/0405-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6470,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.412,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9620345755845742e-07,
      "percentile": 0.738111951700659
    },
    "sha256": "0595269b598a9c9a9ce19ec3dedce54cabbbe4e58e57eb08d970a4799bbfdc73",
    "simhash": "1:b77d5c485b10fe93",
    "word_count": 1175
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:00:26.986874+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROSE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Clash, J.\nThe prisoner is convicted of the murder of Thomas Farmer. There was evidence that the prisoner had threatened to kill the deceased \u201cif he caught him messing round his still,\u201d that \u201cif he caught him on his side the road he would kill him before he got back.\u201d The witness further stated, over objection and exception by prisoner, that the still was a blockade still, and that the revenue officers came and took it; that he had heard prisoner say that the revenue officers got it, and that the deceased was the one who had reported the still to them. This evidence was competent, as tending to show threats and motive.\nRennet Wheeler testified that he and the deceased were riding along the road in a buggy, when they were shot from ambush from the left side of the road; that Farmer, who was on that side of the buggy, was killed, and witness was shot in the knee, breast, arm and face; that he looked up and saw the prisoner run through the woods with a gun in his hand; that later he went back to the place and pointed out to others where he saw the man run; \u201ca bush was cut down right by the side of the stump. It is about 15 steps from where we were shot to the stump, and about the same distance from the place from where I saw the man run. Rose was right plain. I saw him. He started to run. I didn\u2019t see anybody fire the gun, but I saw the prisoner run from the stum]) from where the shot came. He ran to the left, through the woods. He had just got up and started when I saw him. He was right at place fixed to shoot from. He had on a light-colored hat and no coat. As soon as I jumped out of the buggy and stopped the mule, I saw him run.\u201d There was corroborative evidence as to the condition of the spot, that from the stump one could see.to fire at men in the buggy, a place having been cleared out by cutting down the bush; that a man running as described by witness could be seen from the place where he said he stood after getting out of the buggy; that this had been proved by actual experiment, that standing where Wheeler said he stood a man raising up from behind the stump could be seen and recognized; that tli\u00e9 prisoner had that day tried to buy \u201cdouble B\u201d shot, such as were found embedded in the buggy; that he was seen not far off that afternoon, and the like.. One of the witnesses for the defense testified on cross-examination that he saw the prisoner cross the road three-quarters of a mile from the place of the homicide about 5:30 o\u2019clock of the same evening Farmer was killed, and that he had on a white hat and no coat. Another witness for the defense testified he had heard prisoner say that if he knew Farmer had reported his still he would whip him.\nThe case states that after explaining, fully the law of homicide, the Court said: \u201cThe counsel for the prisoner, in his argument to you, said that under the evidence in this case you must either return a verdict of not guilty, or guilty of murder in the first degree, and the Court charges you that \u25a0this is the law of the case.\u201d Singularly enough, his counsel now contend that this is error. But we think it is correct, as is also the further charge, excepted to, that if, after considering all the circumstances carefully and deliberately, in connection with all the evidence in the case, the jury \u201care satisfied, after having done this, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the prisoner slew the deceased as alleged by the State, \u25a0then it would be your duty to return a verdict of murder in the first degree; but if not so satisfied, it would be your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.\u201d\nAll the evidence tends to show that the killing was done by someone \u201clying in wait,\u201d which comes expressly within the statutory definition of murder in the first degree. There was no evidence of an altercation or a killing under any other circumstances. If the prisoner was the man who fired the fatal shot, he was guilty of murder in the first degree, and if this was not shown beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury should, and under the Judge\u2019s charge would, have acquitted the prisoner.\nThe first ground of exception to the refusal of a new trial is \u201cbecause the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence.\u201d This was in the discretion of the Judge below, and is not reviewable on appeal. Edwards v. Phifer, 120 N. C., 405, and numerous cases there cited; Benton v. Railroad, 122 N. C., 1007.\nTbe second, fourth and fifth exceptions have already been disposed of. The third exception is \u201cBecause the Court failed to state the contentions of the prisoner in his charge to the jury. The Court did not state the contentions of either side, other than appears herein, and no request was made that it be done.\u201d The charge does not appear to have been .sent up in full, but therein the Court refers to the contentions of prisoner\u2019s counsel, charges fully the law, recapitulates the evidence, and directs the jury\u2019s attention to the principal point, to-wit, that the jury must acquit unless satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the prisoner slew the deceased .as alleged by the State, the uncontradicted evidence being that the deceased was killed by someone lying in wait. The prisoner\u2019s contention was solely that he was not the man. The jury declared themselves satisfied by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he was.\nWe see no error of which the prisoner can complain.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Clash, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown Shepherd, for the Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "D. Worthington, and S. G. Mewborne, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROSE.\n(Filed December 20, 1901.)\n1. EVIDENCE \u2014 Competency\u2014Motion\u2014Threats.\nEvidence that the prisoner had threatened to kill the deceased and had accused him of having reported blockade still of prisoner, is competent as tending to show threats and motive.\n2. HOMICIDE \u2014 Evidence\u2014Murder in First Degree.\nUnder the evidence in this case the trial judge properly charged that the prisoner was guilty of murder in the first degree or nothing.\nNEW TBIAL \u2014 Judge\u2014Discretion\u2014Verdict Against Weight of Evidence.\nThe granting of a new trial because the verdict is contrary to the weight of evidence is discretionary with the trial judge.\n4. INSTBUCTIONS \u2014 Case on Appeal.\nThe court holds that in this case the charge of the trial judge fully complies with the law.\nINDICTMENT against John H. Nose, beard by Judge E. W. Timberlahe and a jury, at September Term, 1901, of the Superior Court of Wilson County. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nBrown Shepherd, for the Attorney-General, for the State.\nD. Worthington, and S. G. Mewborne, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0575-01",
  "first_page_order": 609,
  "last_page_order": 612
}