{ "id": 8698835, "name": "State v. Norris", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Norris", "decision_date": "1796-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "495", "last_page": "517", "citations": [ { "type": "nominative", "cite": "1 Hayw. 495" }, { "type": "official", "cite": "2 N.C. 495" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Super. Ct.", "id": 22358, "name": "North Carolina Superior Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "2 Hay. 397", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hayw.", "case_ids": [ 11989400 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/3/0397-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 2346, "char_count": 57147, "ocr_confidence": 0.274, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.6041074209345796 }, "sha256": "84a0304afb12610f70db31b29dbcc01b63679b411dea3ca5c9c4a1664484c43d", "simhash": "1:324788c4e27c7d8d", "word_count": 10415 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:10:25.463344+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "State v. Norris." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Judge Wii.iisams.\nThe people in tins country do riot take for truth, eveiy thing that is published in a newspaper. The jury w 111 know they are to beguverned only by the evidence and the law. I trust no one will be so much prejudiced against, the prisoner, as to be led to at* unjust condemnation. It will be the duty and the business of the conn, to see that be has every advantage the law allows him. it is not to be apprehended that a jury of tisis coun'ry will do him wrong \u2014 their humanity is proverbial. Judge Haywood. \u2014 \u00cd disapprove highly of tin-publication \u2014the cause, however, is in course for trial, anti must come on. The clerk began to call over the jurots, after informing the prisoner these were the men who were to pass upon Ills trial, and that he must challenge tln-m if he thought proper, as the} came to the book to be sworn. Mr Hay said the killing of Daves by the prisoner, liad been a subject of very genera! conversation $ that the fac(; |)af] been related in a newspaper under aggravating-circumstances, and though that publication might not hove been made with a view of pre-ocoupying the mind of any one who was to take a part in the trial,.yet in reality, it. may have had the effect of prejudicing the public mind in general against the prisoner-: that he had but too much reason to apprehend it had produced such effects : he therefore moved when the prisoner objected to a juror propter effectual, or for favor, as if is called, that the juror might he examined upon oath whether he had expressed an opiniorfuufavorable to fhrpr-isoner-,asother-wise it would be difficult for him to produce any satisfactory proof of the fact, having been confined and visifed only by one friend, and not knowing until the moment the juror- is offered, whether or not that person would be upon the panel. Great part of the jurors, being talesmen, summoned this morning since the. sitting of the court, had he ever heard of any man having expressed an unfavorable opinion, not knowing he would be summoned as a talesman, it is not to he expected the prisoner could he prepared to prove his exception, however true it might be, unless if could be supposed he. had prepared himself to support his exception against every man u h.. had given.such opinion, and that would be unreasonable. Mr. Jones opposed the motion, saying there was no preced>-nt for such a procedure, attd he hoped the court would not now make one for the first lime in favor of this prisoner, who should be tried as all other prisoners have been.\nJudge. Haywood-\n\u00cd do not at pres* nt recollect, e.ver to have seen such a practice, and I am induced to think there is n\u00ab precedent of this kind. Judge W\u00edliiams \u2014 \u25a0 there is none.\nMr. Taylor then cited 3 Bl. Com. 363. A person about to he sworn as a juror, may he challenged for any of the-causes there stated ; or even where the challenger liath no principal cause of challenge, but only some cause of suspicion, the validity of which must be left to triers. He also, ctt d 3 Bl. Com. 364, where it is laid down from Co. Litt 158 Bl. that a juror may himself be examined on O\u00edt 11 of voire dire, with regard to s-ich causes of ehal-Ienge, as ate not 10 his dishonor or discredit. He also cited 4 Bl. Com. 352, where it is said, the prisoner may have the -ame thabrng -s for cause, its a criminal, as the Plaintiff \u2022\u00bb. ,Defend \u2022 t(>\u2022-(! up bis heels attd threw him on the ground. Norris rose ami stepned t \u00abwards him. Daves struck him\u2014 Norris desire\u00bb! Campbell e he was, and he was stabbed on the left side oi die heliy, with a wound three or four inches in leogdi. Upon the cross-ex. initiation of the witness, he said Daves kicked at Norris after he fell in the first combat, near Mrs. Ramsuy\u2019s ; and that Norris\u2019s house was about fifty ,. a\u00ab * '\u25a0 ith you. We all went home, and next morning E met JV*orris, who asked what had been she matter last night, saying he had come to see about it, and seeming to be uneasy at what had happened. He inquired for Daves, who about that time came up. They conversed together j. Daves said, it was your fault, but I don\u2019t care \u2014 I never bear malice. Norris replied, if was not me hut rum ; let us go to Dick\u2019s and drink something. I proponed they should meet at the races and drink together, which \u00a1hey agreed to. At the race-gr-.und he called to Da.ves and-myself to come and drink with him, and we did so.\u2014 After drinking together we parted. After dark, at Ramsay\u2019s, Norris came in and sat down. We sat down to supper, and Norris was asked to sit down,, but declined and went out \u2014 Campbell was missing \u2014 hut-after supper came in \u2014 Daves asked him what Norris, came for 5 Campbell said, ne supposed to breed a riot.\u2014 Daves and .my self tM-n pulled oh'our cloaihs and went into the piazza. Norris and Young were not there.\u2014 Daves railed out for them, saying they were cowards \u2014 Norris came up, and Daves met him. 1 wen! off culling for Young, lie answered, I am here. Daves and Norris. had some words, and Daves tripptd him up. Norris rose and Daves struck him. Norris required Campbell to take notice, it was just at this time \u00cd heard Young answer. Daves struck three or four more blows, and Norris ran off. We went to Yoitng and stood talking with aim, when Norris came up. Daves turned and went towurds-h m, saying, yon ha- r g t a \u00abcapon or a stick, which Noras denied. Mrs. Thompson railed oul, saying, Norris has a sword or gun, he will kill you \u2014 -do not gQ to him. Daves however, and Morris met in the street opposite to-whero we were. As they not JVorris made a lunge. Daves n ied out, he lias stabbed me, and fell. Foung and myself went to him \u2014 his bowels were out \u2014 we earned him to Mrs. Bamsay\u2019s, am1 in two hours he died. Af the last meet in/', i did not see Daves strike before the Stab. It was eighty or an hundred yards from Thomp-sow\u2019s the place where the stab was gi\\ en, to Morris\u2019s house. It is about twenty yard', from Mrs. Ramsay\u2019s, where the first combat was, to Thompson\u2019s. When Morris returned, he came running, and immediately after he gave the stab, ran off. I followed him, but did not overtake him, and returned. When Morris came into the house at Mrs. Ramsay\u2019s, Daves said tome, Mrs. Ramsay does not want Morris here, yon had better ask him to go out. I icplied. no \u2014 he will go presently.\nMrs. Thompson deposed as follows : that on Saturday nigh; she was sit'ing in ati out-house, and heard a great noise, and a woman\u2019s voice, and saw Mrs. Ramsay in the street, and heard very heavy blows, arid Mrs. Ramsay saying, cousin Ramsay don\u2019t strike too. Ju-.t at this time Foung came to her w here she was standing in the street; she asked who were making that noise, he answered that Dudley and Daves were beating Morris; re-ques\u2019od her to take his coat, saying he could not stand that, alluding as she supposed, to the heavy blows that were heard. Immediately a man came running, Foung asked who he was ; he said, Morris: what is the matter, said Foung, don\u2019t run, Morris replied, \u00cd can\u2019t sumd thiee or four men. Foung said, you must stand ; it is cowardly to run. I will stand by you. Dudley & Daves came running up, and Morr-s breaking tire hold Foung had on him, ran off. Foung stepped hack, saying to Daves and Dudley, stop. i They asked him whether Morris had come by, lie said yes \u2014 but what is the matter ?\u2014 They said, do you stop us ? do you want ro fight ? He answered no. Daves then came *<> where she was, and said Morris had abused Mrs. Ramsay unmercifully, and that he had resented it. At tisis lime Dudley and Foung were in the. street in high words, and Morris came hack running. Dudley and Foung stood some small distance from her and Daves. Morris stopt ovi the other side of the si n et and sf,,.,d a short time. Sue said to Daves, do not go to him \u2022, perhaps he has a weapon. Daves replied, damn him ; I am hot afraid of him, weapon orno weapon; and went round (heqthe.s from her, towards Norris; a>'d said to Norris, hare you a weapon ? he an*w<'* sst->ier would have nothing more to do, timo run .e his \u00bbitne/i-e- to lie introduced on the p.-n r of the Sint*- \u2014 tn.-y m gh' i.ieeefore pas.- for 1 ruth ary falsities they is.-tg f. think proper to utter. It is a very easy matter to procure them to be introduced for the State, as the Solicitor-General, not being acquainted with the witnesses, would think it Ids duly to cu.n.'noo and introduce ail such persons as ho ms is formed could swear any thing against tin- prisoner. Judge Haywood \u2014 No light that can be = i:. o -* u on tisis oibj .vt should be excluded, riot* any means left untried io place (be lari in its (\u00a1\u2022tie point of view. The witness has sworn to some circumstances which me very material in the present case : and if untrue, (hey should he rectified, if sht- has related the fact ditFereniiy io other persons, ii is a good reamm for giving the less credit to her relation now.\nThe witnesses to discredit her testimony, were called. One of them relu\u00edod the story she told a few d ,ys ago, in which several circumstances now mentioned by her were omitted. Two witnesses were called to so op irl her credit \u2014 they said sue u.rl t<\u00bbId ihe story io tlnsr presence at different tintes exactly -u; \u00a1hetto v told it in coift.\nThis (dosed the evidence on both sides \u2014 ; summary of which stands thus : On Oaturday night, Norris & Young returning from the race-, Norris went to at Mrs. Ham-say\u2019s, whilst Young waited fef,, near Thompson s, conversing with Mrs. Thompson. Norris. -Iter an ihspucc of tnree or four iomihcs, \u00a1eim >>ed running, and as Mrs. Thompson says, stopt in the street opposite to them \u2014 as the other witness says, he ran up to Daves without stopping \u2014 Daves discovered him, and' went towards him. Mrs Thompson ami Dudley' say, Daves enquired whether he had a weapon, dub or sth k, winch Norris denied ami they met. Campbell says, Norris cried \u2018out, come on, I am ready for you. Mrs. Thompson says, blows passed upon their meeting, which -.he be!tetes were given by Daves. Budleij says, he did not see Daves strike before the slab \u2014 Ihe other witnesses say no-hing of blows at this tim\u00e9, immediately upon Hie last meeting, the deceased received-the mortal wound of wnich he died.\nJones, Soiicitor-Greneral \u2014 The crime of which the prisoner is indit ted, is that of murder T\u00edtere is no doubt hut that a homicide was committed by him, and 1 will not dwell upon such parts of the evidence as go to the proof of that- \u2014 the. counsel for the prisoner will not deny it\u2014 neither will they deny, but that this homicide is either murder or manslaughter. I shall endeavor to prove from authorities, 'hat a homicide committed under such circumstances, amounts io murder. The definition of murder is this \u2014 when a person of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully killeth any reasonable creature in being, and under the public protection, with malice aforethought, either express or implied. The, grand distinction between murder and manslaughter is, that, murder is accompanied witii (he circumstance of maiice aforethought and manslaughter not. It is this circumstance th it makes , a homicide amount to the, crime of murder : wncnever therefore, the question is, whether Hie homicide amounts to murder or not, the iirst thing to be enquired for is, was it done with malice aforethought. And as this circumstance, is so very material, it is proper, the jury should have a clear conception of its legal signification. The term, malice aforethought, is used in a legal and technical sense, and has not the meaning which in common acceptation is usually aliix-'d to 11 \u2014 .malevolence, grudg- or ill-will to a particular person : for homicide may amount to murder, though the slayer may never before have seen or heard of the person killed \u2014 ts if a man resolve to kill the first man lie meets, and goeth out and kills a man he never before, saw ; or if he discharge a gun amongst a multitude of people, none of wuom lie knowetu any thing of; or if he goes with an unruly horse used to kick? amongst a multitude of people, and tin' horse kicks one with whom he had no previous acquaintance, so that he die ; or if intending to kill one man against whom lie had malice in the common sense of the word, and striking or shooting at him, he kill another without any design a-gainsf him, and with whom he had no previous quarrel, nor any ill-will against him \u2014 all these homicides are malicious, though in none of them had the slayer had any particular ill-will against the person killed. The true legal idea of malice, as applied to the case of killing, is, where the fact of killing is abended with such circumstances as shew the slayer to have a cruel and diabolical temper and disposition, abo\\e what is ordinarily found amongst mankind, or a heart regardless of social duty,- and totally bent on mischief. Foster 225,257. It is the crm-lty of the action, and the malignity of heart the action discovers, to which the law attributes the crime of mm-der ; and which causes the killing to be considered as unfit to be reduced to any species of homicide inferior in denomination and punishment to that of murder. This cruelty and malignity of heart is discoverable from the action itself, and the causes that lead to it. If the cause that led to it be. such a conduct on the part of the person slain, as would in ordinary tempers have produced only a slight resentment, not rising so high as to aim at the life of the offender, but only to a punishment proportionable to the offence, and yet the person offended lias attacked and beaten the other, in such a manner or with such a weapon as shews an intent to kill, and not only to chastise; and in beating he has killed the other, the law will deem it murder: because the beating in a cruel or unusual manner. or with such a weapon, are circumstances attending the fact which shew the heart of the slayer to have been more than ordinarily cruel and regardless of another\u2019s woe. Foster 259. The law deems it proper he should answer for all the consequences of his cruelty, to their utmost extent $ and that one who has behaved himself with so much obduracy and perverseness, should no longer be regard\u00e9d as entitled to that compassion which the frailties of human nature may justly claim. He has acted not from the frailty of his nature, but from the unfeeling ferocity of a savage heart j and this circumstance causes the law to impute to him the crime, of murder \u2014 a crime which seems worthy to be treated with no indulgence, but with the highest species of severity. So if \u00c1. inviie. E. to his house, win re A. has a woman who fives with him, and !5. end she disagree, and-B. abuse her, and A, \u00f1e-que 1 \u25a0 D. to desisi from ill-treating the woman, for (hat lie m bound to proteei bee; and B. shall continue Ids abuse ami A. request him either to desist from abusing her or to leave the house, and B. gets up and throws a bottle of wine at die. bead of A. and immediately draw his sword, and B. with \u00a1\u00a1is -.word kill A, it is murder: for the words spok< n by A. were not improper, nor such as ordinarily would stir up a man, to whom such words on such an occasion were spoken, to seek the. life of the otheryet B. having thrown a bottle full of wine with great force at The head of A. and by that having discovered an intent to kill him, and immediately having followed his intend; d Silow with drawing bis sword, another indication of his seeking the life of A. upon so slight an occasion, are circumstances Unit slew a disposition in the slayer, regardless of social duty and fatally bent upon mischief \u2014 a heart excessively cruel and turned to inhuman revenge, and therefore it is murder. li\u2019eelyvg 120. Whenever this excess of cruelty appears, this disposition of tin* mind to enormous revenge, seeking upon no extraordinary provocation for the life of a fellow man \u2014 the crime of homicide amounts to murder. Also the crime of murder may be inIV*i red from the circumstance of former grudges, in the. present vase, bet.ween Norris and tin* deceased j but, I am 'Willing not to insist upon this, because it was proved they were, reconciled* and drank together at the races for the purpose of settling their dispute. The authority of \u00a1 II. F. \u20ac. 19!, may be produced, and l suppose will be produced, where there lias been once a former fighting between the parties and a reconciliation, and a new failing out and lighting upon which death ensues, thati\u00edsim\u00fc not in such ease be attributed to the old grudge. 1- will admit this to be law, as it is.not my dcrii e to press any thing against the prisoner but what the law of the country and tin* I'Mdenee warrants. Unhappily, there is no occasion for resorting to the preceding quarrel, to fix upon the prisoner the guilt of murder. JNu case of killing upon a provocation given, has ever been adjudged manslaughter, where the provocation was no greater than that which was given in the present case, and the killing itself was commuted with so much wiekednes*. Disputes and \u00f1f filing in consequence of them, happen every day in the s>;rests,and elsewhere, w \u00a11! 'he law *a,', when one is worsted, fie may quit the affray, go home, provid< him-t If \u00abith a knitr. return and .plunge it into the body of his adversary, ami that in- shall he guilty <>f no more than manslaughter? Such a doctrine will deluge the country in blood. The life of every man who is drawn into a quarrel and contends with another, will be <\u00bb d.iug'T. What can be more < rud, more indicative of a in dignant heart, than this deed of she prisoner ? fie quarrels with another and is be.ten, a thing that happens every day, and that \u00abill happen so long as there are men ; for this lie quits the conflict, goes directly fo a deadly weapon, returns and kills his antagonist.. Would oMicr men ic general, in his situation, have, taken up the cruel purpose of seeking so deadly a revenge? I slunk they v,'.*\u00ab!\u00ab! not $ ami it seems to me the act can appear no otherwise thin ns the effect of a cruel disposition, not ofhiitinui v.e.koess deserving of our compassion : and if it be iheeffrc- of cruelty, it amounts to murder, fled lie not time in going 80- or an 100 yards and returning, whilst he was mod.tying the horrid deed, to admit one sentiment of bun unity \u2014 to reflect and he diverted IVom it ? For the. honor of hitman nature let if be said, there are hut few men in the woild, who in all this time, would not. *ave persuaded them-, selves to abandon the inhuman design \u2014 hut very fen who would not Stave been awakened and alarmed by the workings of so black a spirit within them, and hate shrunk from its suggestions. The heart that could so hu.g entertain the hideous fiend, must have been familiarized to its lessons \u2014 the cruelty of the act demonstrates it murder, and here is that cruelty in its most heightened colors. \u2014 . The eases in the books where homicide Is adjudged hut manslaughter, have gone upon the circumstance of sime great provocation given to the slayer \u2014 such as in its nature is calculated to excite the pa-sions to the highest degree of turbulence \u2014 not upon shat of anger or resentment conceived upon occasions of'frequent and ordinary occurrence. Reproachful \u00ab ords spoken fo flic slayer, how provoking soever, \u00abill not reduce tiie act to manslaughter ; because words do not generally, excite fo thm degree of fury which aims at tin* life of tin- speaker. 11\u2018eelyng 55.. The aiming at his life ts-erefore upon s ich a oral ion,, is a proof of that devilish spirit, regM-dlvs of social duty, which cares not for the evils inflicted upon others-that perverseness of heart which the law punisheth. If two persons suddenly fall out and fight, and in the contest one kills the other, that is manslaughter : the blood is heated, the passions boil, rage dictates his conduct, and whilst the blows are passing, there is no leisure for reflection, nor time for reason to assume its empire. Keelyng 56. That is not like the case before us: here, the combatants were separated, and the fatal blow not given till three or four minutes afterwards ; not until the slayer had gone 80 or an 100 yards and returned, after arming himself with a deadly weapon. Or if a man be. provoked by a great indignity offered to him, as by pulling his nose, spitting in his face, or the like, and he kills immediately, the law will attribute the act to human frailty ; but in all these cases the provocation is of the highest, kind, and the killing sudden and instantaneous, before the slayer lias time to deliberate or even think upon the. act he is about to commit. Keelyng 135, 136. Leach 155. Any circumstance of deliberation accompanying (he fact of killing, though the falling out is sudden and the killing a short tinte after, will cause the slayer to fall under (he imputation of murder ; as where two persons suddenly fall out, and the one goes away, saying he will gel something and stick the other ; and half an hour afterwards returns, having a great coat on and a weapon concealed under it, and throws down a foil, th\u00e9 play they were at before the quarrel began, and the deceased according to custom, takes up the foil and strikes the other, who draw's out his weapon and kills \u2014 it was adjudged murder : not because the space of half an hour had intervened, but because the conduct of the slayer evinced deliberation and a cruel purpose. Foster 13Z. In the present case, there are circumstances which shew deliberation, and a design concealed in the breast of the slayer. He was asked, whether he had a weapon? He said, no. Again \u2014 or a stick ? He answered, no. Why did he conceal this circumstance ? What other motive could he have, but to induce Daves to come upon him, that he might strike the fatal blow ? This is as weighty a circumstance towards ptoving reflection as any of those, or all of them together, mi ntioued in the case iast cited. As to the blows said by Mrs. Thompson, to have passed, immediately before- the stab, no stress is m he laid upon them, because if they actually did pass, Morris had come to that spot armed with a deadly weapon, to *.ak< away the Ufe of tbe deceased, upon -a black and diabolical design, the true reuse of the fern\u00bb malice: and basing killed in pursuance of that, he is guilty of murder, although lie ss as stricken by the other before the mortal wound was given. Upon the most attentive consideration, I cannot but view this case as murder, and with the observations I have now made, \u00cd submit tbe fate of this unhappy man to the decision of the. court and jury.\nMr. Hay, and then Mr. Taylor, answered the Solicitor, and commented upon the evidence at great length, and with much ingenuity, placing it in as favorable a ligidffor tbe prisoner as possible: but as the true state of facts is as above collected, it is useless to report their remarks upon them. They insisted that the law so far as related to a case circumstanced like the present, defines manslaughter to be \u2014 when the fact is done in the beat of nassion and resentment, excited npon violent provocation given : and the killing need not be whilst both parties are combatting, as Mr. Jones seemed to intimate upon the authority of Keelyng 56. But if committed in so short a time after the irritation, as tliat the passions have not bad time to subside and cool, it is manslaughter only. And they cited Rowley\u2019s case, Cro. Jac. 296, where two boys fought, one beat tbe other and drew blood from his nose, who ran three quarters of a mile to'his father, who came with a staff & struck the other boy \\ hat he died, this was adjudged manslaughter only, owing to the heat of the passions at the time the blow was given. They also cited several cases from Com Dig. vol. 4, p. 258, to show that the killing with a deadly weapon (though the deceased were not fighting at the time) under the influence of violent anger, hath been adjudged manslaughter. They also cited 1 H. P. C. 82, and Foster 278. Strange 499. Keelyng 56, 135, 136, and Leach 155.\nJudge Haywood. \u2014 The case before us is of awful itn-portance: every circumstance in it is worthy of attention and consideration : I am pleased at the solemn silence which hath prevailed during the progress of this trial. The offence of which the prisoner is indicted, is that.of the murder of Nathaniel Daves. If he is guilty upon die. e\\ \u00a1deuce, w eighed by the law of the country, public justice requires lie should not be screened by any misplaced compassion ; and if upon the evidence he is not gn\u00a1if.y of tl\u00a1e crime imputed In him, tto influence whatse-over should prevail t\u00bb hinder liifi acquittal. Whether he be. guilt} or not, dope (Ik opon the la\u00bb' and the fact : before we proceed to examine the fact, we should clearly comprehend what is meant by the term, murder. To-fix the attention only to such circumstances as are material to be considered n\u00abw, it will be sufficient to say, it is a killing with malice prepense. The other parts of the definition have been fully giv-n in the Solicitor-General. Maine, prepense is a legal term that needs explanation. It does not signify ill-wisi or malevolence against an individual; it means, assume authors express it, a dispo ition to doe-, si : as others, the symptom of a wicked, depraved and corrupted heart : as others, the sign of a head regardless of social duty, and fat-lly bent upon mischief: by others, iris termed a circumstance attending the fact, that cuts off the slayer from all manner of excuse. All of them being only different modes of representing the same idea. I\u00bbyr this iat'er explanation is meant, that when the killing is without any justifying, excusing or alleviating circumstance, it is then murder. There are a great variety of such circumstances; for ins>anre, where, the killing is committed by an officer in executing the sentence of a proper tribunal ; the killing by such authority and for such a reason, is a circumstance that justifies the party. So also if ,*. man kill another who i\u00ab attempting to kill or rob him, or the \"ike:, here the killing being with a design to prevent the perpetration of as gieat an evil attempted to he brought upon an innocent person, is a circumstance that justifies the deed. If a man doing a lawful act in a proper manner. nndraignedly kills another : here the killing being, done without any design to kill, and without any negligence in the party killing, is a circumstance, which excuses him. So if the party slaying hath been fighting with another, and declines the combat, and the other press him so hard that he is obliged to kill him to prevent his own destruction, or great bodily harm; this circumstance killing to avoid his own destruction, though originally culpable in fighting with the deceased at all, will excuse him from vim guilt of felony. And in ail other cases, where the circumstances attending tine fact, are such as will justify or excuse the ptuty, he is not guilty of murder : because the nmimstmoes are not such os leave him without excuse. Also, although the killing may not \u00edce attended with rirrumslaoccs of jas ti ir\u2019at lots or excuse, yet it may be attended wish such rimir\u00edi.\u00fcBMYS as wiil mitigate \u00abis off mv, and ulF*>t*.\u00bb bita \u00bb*>;n\u00bb*ihittg to say by way ot excusing or, cxriTsptiwg himself \u00edVos\u00bb the g\u2019.iiit of. mus'i\u00eder: as where vm\u00a1e gro.u and * \u00ab.limi provoca. i\u00ab\u00ab bath been gi.en *o him by the p-rson kiln d, \u00abm\u00ed he in the transport and fury of bis pas-don kiUetiv the other, the law in such cam* attributes \u2018tic kill:.sg to the frailty ot human nature, op<-rM<\u2019d \u00abnon by excessive anger, exeitod by tue unwortu* iroaiaient of the deceased j and both law and reason s.-.ys, that a killing under such circumstances, should ear be punished with the same severity as a killing without pi o vocation, or wuhouta voiy great one, and whe>, the mind cool and reflecting. The great distinction berwreu murder and man daughter is this, uianslaughici' is committed under the operation of luiious anger, tiuit mtspeuds for a tune the proper exercise of reason and reflection, and \"\u2019hir.ii hath been siimoi up by so\u00bb;:- great provocation ; for there are some provocations \u00a1ha; are. nos indulged with an allow-ai.ee of exciting die passions to such excess, and thus a \u25a0disnoctmii is im-med between the \u00ed\u00fc\u00edfrrent degrees of prov.nnUou \u2014 if o suspend the proper operafi-oi of the re.zoning p-n\\e\u00abs, ihe exvrs is-* of judgment and r-Sertion, such prov.ca.i-'m will he * sufficient one to memi.tic the offence Into manslaughter. \u2014 51 at ,;lf5:nrgh a sufficient provocation be given, anil the passions gn atly excited, yet if a .sufficient time isiicr- . venes for tin* pus-doiti* to subside a.ffi cool, and afu-r that t\u2019i.- party prov-'ked, kill.-th >.<\u00ab' o\u2019.her, the l.iw will d m it i.urder \u00a1 a*! having not bee\"; u.t r\u00edfen of ungovernable pas-lion, a. ion. Wnat is a sefli ient time for this purpose, hath never as 1 Uvi\"!*.v of Iren preci.r-ly -ism'-.tin *d. It hath been d s an hour is more >'m srilicient time. it secies So dope \u00bbd g.v-.-..Sy upon l.-u* n.-vlkise o\u00ed the \u00a1u-ov0-c\u00bbtio?(, and mmst be left to \u00a1he jury to decido. 5? in the cage \u00a1jef,,\u00a1,f\u00ed them, they think sufficient time did intervene, .should find the prisoner guilty, though lie had heert greatly provoked before.: if otherwise they should find him not guilty of murder, but of manslaughter onlj.\u2014 Also, although the slayer hath been greatly provoked, and was agitated by resentment and anger in the highest degree, and hath not had a sufficient time for cooling before. the fatal stroke given, jef if in fact he appears to be possessed of deliberation and reflection, when or just before the time he gives the mortal blow, it will be murder. As where two men quarrel, and agree to fight, and the one observes to the other, he must first change his shoes, as they would render him less expert, with the sword; and they afterwards go out and fight, and he kills the other, it is murder ; because the remark he made shews deliberation and reflection. For always it is to he observed, that the law allows the offence to be extenuated only upon the ground, that the slayer has not the free and proper exercise of his rational faculties, owing (o the fury of resentment not unrt asonabiy conceived There are other distinctions between murder and manslaughter not necessary to be now taken notice of, as they have no relation to any such case as is framed by tlie evidence now before the court. It is most proper to state only such parts of the law, concerning homicide, as being compressed into a succinct compass, may serve to exhibit a clear view of the distinction between murder and manslaughter as far as regards this case. The next thing to be done, is to apply such parts of the evidence as are material, to the rules just laid down. The first thing that presents itself is, Norris\u2019s going in Ramsay\u2019s house. He dors not appear to have behaved illy there; from the whole of the evidence it does not appear he. went there with a design to quarrel: lie had retired before -Daves & Dudley stripped and went out. They hallooed for him and Young in the street, calling them cowards. Daves charged Norris, when met, with a design to raise a riot: he denied it again and again, till called a damned liar; when he retorted the lie conditionally ; Doves tripped up his heels, kicked at him on the ground, struck him vfrer he bad risen ; and upon Norris\u2019s intimating an intention to resort to the law for-redress, repeated bis blows three or four times; when Norris ran off. Now the- question arises, was this a great provocation? would such treatment excite the passions of man' in general to a degree excess? I'tliink it would. IfJVbms had killed Daves on the spot, I think it would have been but manslaughter. JVorris returned in three or four minutes, and gave the fatal stab. If he came up and nothing more passed before the stab, as the witnesses Campbell and Dudley .say there did not, then it is for the jury \\.o consider, whether the three or four minutes intervening between the blows near Mrs. Ramsay\u2019s, and the stab opposite Thompson\u2019s, was sufficient tune for the passions to cool. If it was, the killing was murder. If it was not, ihe case falls under the same consideration as if the fatal stroke had been given when Daves first struck him. If the jury believe what was sworn by Mrs. Thompson, and which the other witnesses do not mention, that Daves when he advanced towards Morris after his return, struck him two or three blows before the .stab, they have a right to consider whether that was not a fresh provocation, sufficient to extenuate the homicide into manslaughter. If, however, the jury believe there, was not a sufficient time foi the passion\u00e9 to subside, and that the blows mentioned by Mrs. Thompson, did not pass, yet the circumstances related by two witnesses of Morris\u2019s, having twice denied his having a weapon or club, as it tends to evince deliberation and reflection, must be taken into their consideration ; and if they believe from this circumstance that he at that time had a reflecting capacity, and meant to conceal the weapon from Daves in order to draw him on, that he might kill him, then he is guilty of murder. It is proper, however to observe, that such a conclusion is in some sort negatived by Mrs. Thompson, who declares Morris, told him to stand off, or the worst-would be his. The jury will now take the law, the facts, and the circumstances this case, and by a careful comparison of the one with the other, they will draw a conclusion and say whether the prisoner is guilty of murder or manslaughter. I trust I have stated the law correctly.\nJudge Wix.iiams. \u2014 1 agree with Judge Haywood except in a few particulars : he says, malice is understood of a killing under such circumstances as cuts the party off from all manner of excuse. I do not think this a true position, he may have some kind of excuse, as a slight provocation or the like, or a provocation not sufficiently violent, he may ia short have some sort of excuse, and yef ])0 guilty of murder. I cannot think it an excuse to r< duce tin- offence to manslaughter, where two persons quarrel and fight, and one goes some distance, gets a knife, returns and kills the other with it \u2014 such disputes happen every day. If vvehmy it is not murder to kill shortly after, under such circumstances as this man was killed, much blood will he spilt in a very short time \u2014 it will lie establishing a dreadful precedent. Norris ran oH- from the first combat and went home, he got into his house, his castle of refuge and defence, where no one would haw* offered to molest him \u2014 why did he not, remain there ? Why take his kuife and return back eighty or ail bundled yards toan enraged man ? Did not this shew a murderous intent, and that his heart was bent upon cruelty ? I think it is no matter what provocation the slayer may have- received from the other, if notwithstanding hat he appears to have possessed the faculty of reflecting. It is a temporary frenzy occasioned by passion, and depriving the- man for the time of his reason, that the law consid-.-rs and goes upon in estimating and reducing the. homicide to manslaughter; but there is not any evidence in this case of a deprivation of reason, but evidence of the contrary. H- denied having any weapon, when expressly asked whether he had or not ? The jury will consider way and for what purpose he made such :>n .mswer. if lie had any certain end in view, it is an evidence that his reason and judgment were not oveitmred. On occasions like the present, we are not to give up ourselves to the guidance of commiseration, \\Y! ought inflexibly to do justice without regard to consequences. I am sure I have as much feeling and compassion for my fellow-creatures in distress, as any man; hut it is great cruelty to the public in a-Judge or juror, to acquit a murderer from motives of compassion. It encourages such offences, besides how is the prisoner dearer to us than the person slain, who may have left a wife and heb' h orphans to deplore his loss, deprived of their only \u00ed- a i\u00a1d, and now exposed rmoforrjcss to the world. I \u00f1o r.ot know what was the \u25a0\u25a0biatioo of the deceased, but his may be tie case with persons who tali by murderous hands, and their dependants. I meant not to pre-jiub'he case o(' tin* prisoner, but only to express my id* a of ihe impropriety diere is in .\u00abh-wing favor. 'If the ps < by his \u25a0 o-uhict has snhjerv \u00a15 himself to the punishment of the laws of his country, we were not the cause of bis transgression. If any mishap befa! him, it is his own fault, not ours \u2014 we should never attempt to trample upon the rules of law from motives of mercy or compassion.\nThe jury retired, and after some time returned, and found the prisoner not guilty of murder, but guilty of manslaughter | and he was burnt in the hand and discharged.\nNote. \u2014 The cause of reporting this case with so much minuteness, is, that the public opinion ran very high against the prisoner, before and after his trial, and he was pronounced guilty of murder by many who were present at his trial. The jury who acqnitti d him, were highly censured. Perhaps the learned may be of opimon, when they meet with this case, that the jury gave a proper verdict. It is possible that may become the general opinion. If so, probably some of those who are to be her* after concerned in trials of tiiis sort, may be led to reflect on the rapidity with which a wrong opinion sometimes spreads its influence over the public mind, and to be cautioned, that a popular sentiment, however honest and well meaning U may be, may sometimes become current for want of sufflei* nt consideration or information, & as frequently so,respecting matters ofjudiriai deliberation as any others. That itmaybedestructiveofind'vidu *1 safety, andsh-.nid be watched and guarded against with the same firmness and circumspection as the influence of a King or his Ministers in a Monarchy, when attempting to interfere on such occasions. Should tin- reading of this case sufficiently impress the minds of any who may hereafter he called upon to decide on such occasions, with the propriety and usefulness of such a caution, something will be added to the stock of individual security, and of course to the public happiness, anil the labor bestowed upon this case be amply compensated. At any rate, tl'.e attributing improper motives to any who are from duty concerned in such trials, is of pernicious example. It has a tendency to distract the judgment by the terror of public censure, and to vender it less efficacious in perceiving fact s and circumstances in tlieirtrue light \u2014the opinions of men may differ, and j et all be actuated by tile purest intentions.\nNote. \u2014 In Cock's trial for treason, Salic. 153, the- court decided, a juror could not be asked on oath, whether lie bad expressed an opinion unfavorable to the prisoner ; because it was a misdemeanor to give such an opinion in a criminal case \u2014 but quiere, if that, be a good reason \u2014 Vide State Trials, vol. 4, p. 184, 185.\nNote. \u2014 The acts of 1806, Rev. c. 698, s. 12 \u2014 1808, Rev. c.745 \u2014 1813 Rev. c. 853, provide fortheremov.il ofcauses to another county, where it is apprehended that a fair trial cannot be had in the first county. It is now the universal practice in this State, in capital cas* s, to ask each juror whether he h.\u00bbs formed and expresseu an opinion relative to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner, and if he has to set him aside. The decision relative to the State\u2019a discrediting its own witness is not law. See Sawrey v Murrell & others, 2 Hay. 397. But the patty calling a witness, may disprot * try oilier witnesses, the fact which the first witness swore to. Bull. N. P. 297, Alexander v. Gibson, 2 Camp. N. P. Rep. 555.", "type": "majority", "author": "Judge Wii.iisams. Judge. Haywood- Per curiam" } ], "attorneys": [], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "State v. Norris.\nA motion to postpone a trial for murder, on account of the great pub-li xcitement u-ainsr. the prisoner, was refused. Williams and Haywood, Judien, diffired as to the qtu stion, whether njon-r could be ..sited on o.lh, wnether Meiiudexpreasedan opinion unfavorably to the prisom r. The State- may d.sciedn i