{ "id": 8620871, "name": "STATE v. ERNEST HERRING", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Herring", "decision_date": "1931-01-27", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "308", "last_page": "310", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 N.C. 308" } ], "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": "104 N. E., 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "261 Ill., 517", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 4742406 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/261/0517-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S. E., 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 S. C., 410", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 8716200 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/49/0410-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 273, "char_count": 3858, "ocr_confidence": 0.465, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.209811994104169e-08, "percentile": 0.3844907560247721 }, "sha256": "cede6513efc08e79ee8e79bea6a05896e13bcac30dc2306bca1da1de6a082a87", "simhash": "1:c7ff2695d122b476", "word_count": 678 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. ERNEST HERRING." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThis is a companion case to S. v. Chevis Herring, ante, 306, as both relate to the same murder, though the two defendants were tried separately, before different juries, and on different bills of indictment.\nTo avoid repetition, we may say that the evidence appearing on the present record is sufficient to carry the case to the jury.\nErnest Herring contends, as did Ghevis Herring on his appeal, that the testimony of Deputy Sheriff R. H. Holland, relative to an alleged colloquy had between the prisoner and his brother, while the two were in jail awaiting trial, which the witness overheard, is incompetent as to him. We quote the testimony again, as it is slightly different on the present record from what it was on Ghevis\u2019 appeal: \u201cErnest said to Ghevis, \u2018What do you want to lie on me like this for?\u2019 and Ghevis said he was not telling a lie. Ernest said to Ghevis, \u2018You know you killed him yourself.\u2019 And Ghevis said, \u2018You know I didn\u2019t; you made the bargain yourself. I didn\u2019t have anything to do with it until you made the bargain on Thursday afternoon, and I told you at that time that the old man didn\u2019t have any money, and I had done and forgotten about it until you met me at the branch.\u2019 And Ernest said, \u2018You are lying \u2014 you are telling a lie on me. Why don\u2019t you come on and tell the truth? The Lord knows.\u2019 And Ernest broke in on 'him again and told him he was telling a lie, and Ghevis said, \u2018Lord, Lord, Lord,\u2019 and whistled. Ernest said Ghevis did it and Ghevis said he didn\u2019t have anything to do with it, and Ghevis said. \u2018You told me you would not have my name in it if the man got you.\u2019 \u201d\nThere is nothing in the foregoing colloquy, as detailed by the witness, which partakes of the nature of an admission on the part of Ernest Herring that he was present, participating in the crime. It is true, he is alleged to have said to Chevis, \u201cYou know you killed him yourself,\u201d which the State contends was born of a guilty knowledge, but, in the light of all that was said, we regard this a non sequitwr. Throughout the entire colloquy, Ernest Herring continually challenged the correctness of his brother\u2019s statements. He at no time declared his own complicity in the crime; and we think it was error to admit this evidence as against the present defendant. The whole-conversation amounted to no more than an accusation by Chevis against Ernest, which the latter denied. S. v. Mitchell, 49 S. C., 410, 27 S. E., 424; People v. Harrison, 261 Ill., 517, 104 N. E., 259; 16 C. J., 659-660.\nThere are other exceptions on the present record worthy of consideration, but as they may not arise on another hearing, we shall not consider them now. The prisoner is entitled to a new trial, as indicated, for error in the admission of evidence.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.", "Algernon L. Butler and Henry A. Grady, Jr., for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ERNEST HERRING.\n(Filed 27 January, 1931.)\nCriminal law G f \u2014 Testimony of alleged admission l>y prisoner held incompetent as not tending to implicate him in crime.\nWhere the prisoner is on trial for murder alleged to have been committed by him and another, testimony of a conversation between them in which he consistently denied the accusations of the other as to the commission of the crime, and containing no admission of any fact tending to implicate him therein, is incompetent, the conversation not containing any material admission by the defendant, and being distinguishable from S. v. Heiving, ante, 306.\nAppeal by prisoner, Ernest Herring, from Moore, Special Judge, at August Term, 1930, of Sampson.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon an indictment charging the prisoner with the murder of one F. F. Newton.\nVerdict: Guilty of murder in the first degree.\nJudgment: Death by electrocution.\nThe prisoner appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nAlgernon L. Butler and Henry A. Grady, Jr., for defendant." }, "file_name": "0308-01", "first_page_order": 376, "last_page_order": 378 }