{
  "id": 8597178,
  "name": "STATE v. BEN POSEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Posey",
  "decision_date": "1932-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "4",
  "last_page": "6",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 N.C. 4"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 287,
    "char_count": 3907,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.455,
    "sha256": "b325ccc0e490c0519fd8895f85d264073f4df873ce3597223560fb6c2070ea16",
    "simhash": "1:16b17bbc1a7ce482",
    "word_count": 686
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:49:40.426370+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BEN POSEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe evidence on bebalf of the State tends to sbow tbat around noon, 11 July, 1931, the defendant, Ben Posey, ambusbed bim-self near the Pilkey Creek road in Swain County and sbot and killed Jud Pilkey as the latter came along with bis brother on a wagon. They bad been bauling logs from the woods to the railroad station and were returning borne in the beat of the day when they stopped at the bill to let the borses cool. \u201cI sat down on the bank by the side of the road,\u201d Andy Pilkey testifying, \u201cand my brother was still on the wagon. We beard something Pop, pop, right over us, and my brother looked up and said: \u2018Lord have mercy, there be is,\u2019 and I looked up and saw Ben Posey with bis gun presented on my brother.\u201d The deceased fired his shot gun in the direction of the defendant and ran down the road. The defendant returned the fire with a rifle sbot which bit the deceased on the left side of his bead, pretty close to the forehead, and killed him.\nTbe defendant says that when be saw tbe deceased and his brother resting in the road, be went around up on tbe bank in order to keep from meeting or coming in contact with them, and there stepped on a bush which broke with a loud noise and attracted the attention of tbe deceased and bis brother, and tbat be only returned the fire in self-defense.\nA feud bad existed between the Pilkeys and the Poseys and members of both families had armed themselves in anticipation of an open engagement at any time.\nIn fact, about eleven days prior to tbe homicide tbe defendant, his father, and another, all armed, went to tbe borne of tbe deceased and called for him. He was away at the time. Mrs. Pilkey asked them not to come into the bouse; whereupon tbe father, in tbe presence of the defendant, said: \u201cWe are bunting for them men and their weapons. We have been bunting for them all day and we mean to have them.\u201d (Objection; exception.)\nTbe defendant\u2019s principal exception is to the admission of this evidence. The exception is without merit. The father of the defendant was not speaking for himself alone. The others were present acquiescing and \u201cconsenting unto the wrong.\u201d Only two days before the defendant had met Mrs. Pilkey in the road and asked her where her husband was. On receiving no reply, he remarked: \u201cI am going to kill the s \u2014 o\u2014b when I see him.\u201d Furthermore, this evidence was offered on the question of premeditation and deliberation, to show threats, and as the defendant was acquitted of the capital offense, its admission, if erroneous, in no event could be held for reversible error.\nThe jury was fully justified in returning a verdict of murder in the second degree.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.",
      "Alley & Alley and Edwards & Leatherwood for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BEN POSEY.\n(Filed 15 June, 1932.)\nHomicide G d \u2014 Evidence held competent on question of premeditation and deliberation.\nIn a prosecution for murder evidence that the defendant, his father, and another, all armed, went to the house of the deceased, and that the father told the deceased\u2019s wife that they were and had been hunting \u201cthem men\u201d is held competent on the issue of premeditation and deliberation, the defendant being present and acquiescing therein, and there being other evidence that a feud existed between the families of the deceased and the defendant and that other threats had been made, and further, upon a verdict of the jury of guilty of second degree murder the admission of the evidence, if error, would not be prejudicial.\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at October-November Term, 1931, of SWAIN.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Jud Pilkey.\nVerdict: Guilty of murder in the second degree.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in tbe State\u2019s prison at bard labor for a term of 20 years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Seawell for the State.\nAlley & Alley and Edwards & Leatherwood for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0004-01",
  "first_page_order": 72,
  "last_page_order": 74
}