{ "id": 8625033, "name": "STATE v. JOSEPH SAMUEL MILLER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Miller", "decision_date": "1941-05-07", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "514", "last_page": "521", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "219 N.C. 514" } ], "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": "72 S. E., 107", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "157 N. C., 614", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659415 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/157/0614-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S. E., 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S. E., 186", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630703 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S. E., 764", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 351", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626291 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0351-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S. E., 411", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 443", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630822 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0443-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N. C., 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611265 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 713", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631711 ], "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0713-01" ] }, { "cite": "177 S. E., 120", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 369", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0369-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S. E., 466", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "207 N. C., 118", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622953 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/207/0118-01" ] }, { "cite": "144 S. E., 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629574 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 S. E., 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "161 N. C., 235", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/161/0235-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S. E., 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628847 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 187", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 552", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630764 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0552-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S. E., 995", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "151 N. C., 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8655954 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/151/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N. C., 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610967 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S. E., 727", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614122 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S. E., 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 556", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628234 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0556-01" ] }, { "cite": "124 S. E., 152", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "188 N. C., 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653940 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/188/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S. E., 576", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "175 N. C., 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661927 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/175/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "69 S. E., 8", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "153 N. C., 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271673 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/153/0148-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 861, "char_count": 19818, "ocr_confidence": 0.481, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.2920440793064017e-07, "percentile": 0.786391407375488 }, "sha256": "58bdd6c10a656397014a2fd94c4627bd7ae1c9b7d7ca47d6d4e37700cbc8c9df", "simhash": "1:3bedf4b7dafd9cf5", "word_count": 3689 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:18.105136+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JOSEPH SAMUEL MILLER." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WiNBORNE, J.\nA painstaking scrutiny of the record, and a careful consideration of the questions presented in brief of counsel for defendant fail to disclose prejudicial error.\nThe first exception relates to the admission in evidence of photographs identified as having been taken at one o\u2019clock on the morning of 14 December at the scene where the body of deceased was found, one the \u201cway it was when we got there\u201d \u2014 and the other after he was turned over \u201cto get a facial picture of him to see if he could be definitely identified.\u201d Tbe seventh exception is directed to the action of the solicitor in showing the photographs to the jury during his argument. The record shows that when these photographs were admitted in evidence the court instructed the jury that they were not offered as substantive evidence, but only for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of the witness, if the jury should find that they do illustrate it. Then, again, in his charge the court repeated the instruction, and further expressly charged that the jury should not consider them as substantive evidence as \u201ctending to prove any of the main facts at issue.\u201d For the purpose for which the photographs were offered and received in evidence, they are competent. The record fails to show that the solicitor used them for any other purpose. Hence, their admission in evidence for the purpose stated is in accord with well settled rule of law in this State. Pickett v. R. R., 153 N. C., 148, 69 S. E., 8; S. v. Jones, 175 N. C., 709, 95 S. E., 576; S. v. Lutterloh, 188 N. C., 412, 124 S. E., 152; Honeycutt v. Brick Co., 196 N. C., 556, 146 S. E., 227; S. v. Perry, 212 N. C., 533, 193 S. E., 727; S. v. Holland, 216 N. C., 610, 6 S. E. (2d), 217.\nDefendant next contends that the court erred in limiting the jury to the rendition of one of two verdicts, \u201cGuilty of murder in the first degree\u201d or \u201cNot G-uilty.\u201d Exceptions 8 and 9.\nIt is provided in 0. S., 4200, that \u201cA murder . . . which shall he committed in the perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate any . . . robbery, ... or other felony, shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree and shall be punished by death.\u201d Speaking thereto in the case of S. v. Spivey, 151 N. C., 676, 65 S. E., 995, Manning, J., for the Court, said: \u201cWhere the evidence tends to prove that a murder was done, and that it was done by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or which has been committed in perpetration or attempt to perpetrate any arson, rape, robbery, burglary or other felony, and where there is no evidence and where no inference can fairly be deduced from the evidence of or tending to prove a murder in the second degree or manslaughter, the trial judge should instruct the jury that it is their duty to render a verdict of \u2018guilty of murder in the first degree/ if they are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt, or of \u2018not guilty.\u2019 If, however, there is any evidence or if any inference can be fairly deduced therefrom, tending to show one of the lower grades of murder, it is then the duty of the trial judge, under appropriate instructions, to submit that view to the jury. It becomes the duty of the trial judge to determine, in the first instance, if there is any evidence or if any inference can be fairly deduced therefrom, tending to prove one of the lower grades of murder.\u201d See, also, S. v. Newsome, 195 N. C., 552, 143 S. E., 187; S. v. Donnell, 202 N. C., 782, 164 S. E., 352.\nIn tbe present case, if tbe evidence for tbe State is to be believed, tbe defendant, in tbe perpetration of, or in an attempt to perpetrate a robbery of C. C. Ritter, sbot and killed bim. Tbe homicide so committed is murder in tbe first degree. C. S., 4200; S. v. Logan, 161 N. C., 235, 76 S. E., 1; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445, 144 S. E., 590; S. v. Donnell, supra; S. v. Satterfield, 207 N. C., 118, 176 S. E., 466; S. v. Green, 207 N. C., 369, 177 S. E., 120; S. v. Alston, 215 N. C., 713, 3 S. E. (2d), 11; S. v. Kelly, 216 N. C., 627, 6 S. E. (2d), 533.\nIf, on tbe other band, tbe testimony of tbe defendant, as witness in bis own behalf, is to be believed, tbe killing of C. 0. Ritter was done by John Henry Thomas, while be and defendant, as co-conspirators in a preconceived plan to rob C. C. Ritter, were perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a robbery of bim. This too made tbe homicide murder in tbe first degree, and both of them would be guilty. S. v. Bell, 205 N. C., 225, 171 S. E., 50; S. v. Stefanoff, 206 N. C., 443, 174 S. E., 411; S. v. Green, supra.\nThere is no evidence of a lesser degree of homicide. S. v. Spivey, supra; S. v. Myers, 202 N. C., 351, 162 S. E., 764; S. v. Ferrell, 205 N. C., 640, 172 S. E., 186; S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323.\nHence, there is no error in limiting tbe jury to one of two verdicts, murder in tbe first degree or not guilty. S. v. Donnell, supra; S. v. Satterfield, supra.\nDefendant further complains that in addition to charging tbe jury on tbe subject of homicide committed while in tbe perpetration, or attempt to perpetrate a robbery, tbe court went further and charged on tbe subject of \u201ca willful, deliberate and premeditated killing,\u201d and still limited tbe jury to one of two verdicts as hereinbefore stated. Even so, as was similarly stated by this Court in S. v. Logan, 161 N. C., 235, 76 S. E., 1, bis honor might well have omitted from bis charge all reference to \u201cpremeditation and deliberation,\u201d for tbe entire evidence in tbe record shows that C. C. Ritter was slain either by defendant as principal, or by Jobn Henry Thomas as co-conspirator of defendant, acting in a concerted plan with defendant, in tbe perpetration of, or attempting to perpetrate a robbery of C. O. Ritter. See, also, S. v. Alston, supra.\nDefendant further contends that tbe court should have instructed tbe jury on tbe question as to whether defendant was mentally capable of committing tbe crime. There is no evidence that tbe defendant was not capable of knowing and understanding what be was doing. Compare S. v. Murphy, 157 N. C., 614, 72 S. E., 107; S. v. Alston, supra. In fact, it appears from tbe charge of tbe court below that defendant did not then undertake to exculpate himself upon tbe ground of insanity. Yet tbe court was liberal in charging tbe jury as to bis contentions in respect to all that tbe evidence tends to show as to tbe blow on bis bead, as well as to tbe circumstances under which he was reared by an aged grandmother, and as to his condition in life.\nThere are other exceptions appearing in the record which are not brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief and are deemed abandoned. Rule 28 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 213 N. 0., 808. However, we find no merit in them.\nIn the judgment below there is\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "WiNBORNE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.", "J. G. Newell and Hiram, P. Whitacre for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JOSEPH SAMUEL MILLER.\n(Filed 7 May, 1941.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 23: Criminal Law \u00a7 38a\u2014\nTlie admission in evidence of photographs of the scene of the homicide, one as deceased was found and the other after he had been turned over to show his face in order to identify him, for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of the witnesses, and the use of the photographs by the solicitor in his argument for such purpose, is not error.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 27h \u2014 Where all evidence tends to show murder in perpetration of robbery, court need not submit question of guilt of less degrees of crime.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant killed deceased in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, a robbery. Defendant\u2019s testimony was to the effect that he and a companion, pursuant to a conspiracy, were perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate a robbery, and that, both being present, his companion fired the fatal shot. Held: The court correctly limited the jury to a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree or not guilty, there being no evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of a less degree of the crime. O. S., 4200.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 2\u2014\nWhere, in pursuance of a preconceived plan to rob, one of the conspirators, both being present, shoots their victim while perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate the robbery, both are guilty of murder in the first degree. C. S., 4200.\n4. Homicide \u00a7 27h\u2014\nWhere all the evidence tends to show defendant\u2019s guilt of murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, a robbery, the fact that after charging the law on this aspect of the case, the court also charges the law of premeditation and deliberation, does not render the court\u2019s failure to submit to the jury the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of a less degree of the offense erroneous.\n5. Homicide \u00a7 27f\u2014\nWhere defendant does not plead insanity and offers no evidence that he was not capable of understanding and knowing what ho was doing, the court is not required to charge the jury on the question as to whether defendant was mentally capable of committing the crime.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 79\u2014\nExceptions not brought forward in appellant\u2019s brief are deemed aban- . doned. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28.\nAppeal by defendant from Alley, J., at regular term of criminal court, January, 1941, of MeckleNburg.\nCriminal prosecution upon indictment charging defendant with murder of C. C. Ritter.\nIll tbe trial court evidence for the State tends to show these facts: About midnight on the night of 13 December, 1940, the body of C. C. Ritter was found crumpled under a tree near an automobile on a lot just off the sidewalk of Central Avenue and across the avenue from his barber shop in the city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. He was dead. His death was caused by a wound inflicted by a 38 caliber bullet fired into the back of his head, and which lodged in the brain.\nDefendant, a Negro boy, then approximately one month less than eighteen years of age, was arrested on the following Wednesday morning, and voluntarily confessed to police officers that he killed C. C. Ritter. His statement was taken down by Mr. Hunter, of the Charlotte Observer.\nHis statements in this connection are to the effect that he had previously worked at the shop of C. C. Ritter and knew him and his habits; that prior to 13 December, 1940, he had obtained a pistol from John Henry Thomas, a Negro boy, and on Wednesday before that date, had bought five \u201c38\u201d caliber cartridges from a hardware store operated by a Mr. Cathey on Central Avenue; that on the night of 13 December, 1940, as he was walking along Lamar Avenue towards and near Central Avenue he saw Mr. Ritter \u201ccoming out of his place\u201d and locking His door; that he, defendant, had this gun which he had obtained from John Thomas; that he came across to Mr. Ritter\u2019s automobile and waited behind it until Mr. Ritter got there; that when Mr. Ritter opened the door of his car, he, defendant, \u201cthrowed the pistol on him and told him to give him his money\u201d; that Mr. Ritter turned around and started to walk off, and said or told defendant that he would call the police, and he shot him; that he did not intend to kill him \u2014 just meant to shoot him in the shoulder, to keep him from calling the police; that he, defendant, then ran down the railroad toward Barnhardt Manufacturing Company, and returned about an hour later to see if Mr. Ritter was there, \u201cthinking that the man was only wounded, and that he would be gone\u201d; that when he returned he found Mr. Ritter was dead, and \u201cthen took his money off him and went back to Lamar Avenue, and ... to the railroad\u201d; that he got twenty-nine dollars, consisting of bills and silver; that he took the money and went to the Brooklyn section and gave Mildred Reid six dollars, and bought clothing for himself with the balance; that he had been drinking some on the night of the killing; that he carried the pistol back and put it in John Thomas\u2019 house.\nThe State further offered testimony of Mildred Reid to the effect that she saw defendant at eleven o\u2019clock and after on the night of the killing, and, in her words, \u201cJoe didn\u2019t seem to be drunk that night, seemed to be sober. He was nice and quiet and acted like he always have acted.\u201d\nThe State further offered testimony of John Henry Thomas, a Negro boy, twenty years of age, to the effect that on Sunday, 15 December, 1940, having heard while caddying at a golf course that Joe Miller shot Mr. Ritter, he said to defendant as they were returning, \u201cJoe, I heard you shot Mr. Ritter with my gun, and I want to know if it\u2019s so,\u201d and that after some conversation he said: \u201cYes, I shot Mr. Ritter . . . I did not mean to kill him, just meant to shoot him in the shoulder, to keep him from calling the police.\u201d\nThe State further offered evidence tending (1) to identify defendant as the one who purchased cartridges from Mr. Cathey, and (2) to show (a) that he did give Mildred Reid six dollars on night of 13 December, (b) that pistol was found at the place named by defendant; and (c) that defendant took officers to each place where he bought clothing.\nDefendant as witness for himself testified that about ten-thirty o\u2019clock on Friday morning, 13 December, John Thomas talked with defendant, said that he had some bills to pay, and suggested getting some money; that on being asked by defendant where he was going to get the money, he said he didn\u2019t know but he had found a place to get some; that at 7:15 that night John Thomas showed defendant where he kept his gun, and said, \u201cWe are going to get the gun or we\u2019re going to get some money,\u201d and that he was going out to Mr. Ritter\u2019s barber shop; that on being asked by defendant what he was going to do with the gun, he said, \u201cWe\u2019re going to take it along for a bluff\u201d; that he, defendant, did not know that Thomas had any intention of using that gun to kill Mr. Ritter. Then, continuing, defendant testified: \u201cThe gun that Mr. Ritter was killed with was the gun of John Thomas. On the night of this homicide John Thomas and I . . . come down there on Lamar Avenue and Central and waited behind the sign board till Mr. Ritter started from his barber shop, and then as he was crossing the street I stepped behind his car and Thomas stepped out in front of him and asked him for his money ... I did not have any weapon with me at all ... I did not have any desire to injure Mr. Ritter. . . . So far as I know Mr. Ritter never did see me . . . After Mr. Ritter was shot we went down the railroad, down by the Louise Mill . . . We stayed there about an hour and . . . come back up where his body was. I got Mr. Ritter\u2019s money. It was folded in his hip pocket in bills; Yes, sir, he had some silver, I think about five or six dollars of silver in his coat pocket. Mr. Ritter had fifty-six dollars in all, and I got twenty-eight dollars and John Thomas got the other. After Mr. Ritter was shot we went . . . and . . . stopped and divided the money \u2014 there in the light of the laundry . . . After dividing the money I went over to Mildred Reid\u2019s, my girl friend\u2019s, house that night ... I did give her six dollars. John Thomas carried the gun home with him . . .\u201d\nContinuing, defendant testified: \u201cOn December 13tb we left borne about a quarter past seven. I went over to John Thomas\u2019 house, that is where we started from to go rob Mr. Eitter ... At the time I started up there with John Thomas and at the time Mr. Eitter was shot, \u2014 I was drinking wine. I had had just about two pints. I had been drinking wine that night; well, I started around six-thirty . . . I had been drinking wine a pretty good while . .\nAnd, continuing, defendant testified: \u201cWhen I got over here to the police I told them that I had done it; I told them very much what I have told on the witness stand. Well, before it happened Thomas said if I got caught he wanted me to take it on myself and leave him out of it, and if he got caught he would do the same for me. Yes, sir, I took it on myself about two weeks before court time ... I want to say that I did not have anything against Mr. Eitter aiid I did not kill Mr. Eitter, and I want to ask the court to spare my life, because I did not kill him.\u201d\nThen, on cross-examination, defendant testified that he knew the time Mr. Eitter quit the shop at night, knew he took in considerable money on Friday, knew he carried money home with him when he left the shop, knew he did not keep any money in his cash register, knew he put it in his pocket, knew he left in an automobile to go home, knew where he parked his car, and knew the direction he was going to take to his home. He said: \u201c. . . I and Thomas had planned this to go get his money, and if I got caught, whoever got caught would take it on himself. I will say it was planned that day about ten-thirty in the morning. . . . I had planned the whole thing out what I was going to do and how I was going to rob him. ... I had planned to take this old pistol down there and use it, and if it took that to get the money that was what I was going to do.. ... I shot to wound him, to keep him from telling the police. Yes, sir, he told me he was going to tell the police, but I didn\u2019t shoot him. ... I shot to wound him that was the idea. . . . This boy and I were working together by way of an agreement, . . . in furtherance of the agreement that I had between us at ten-thirty that morning before Mr. Eitter got killed ... I told Mr. Ernest Hunter, the City Editor of the Charlotte Observer, that night and these men in his presence that I had shot Mr. Eitter and I shot him to wound him in the shoulder because he was going to get the police after me. We made up that story that we were going to shoot him in the shoulder before we left home. . . . The purpose was if we had to shoot him that we would shoot him in the shoulder to wound to keep him from going after the police. . . . Thomas said if he started to holler he would shoot him in the shoulder and wound him . . . I helped frame that up ... I first saw Mr. Eitter in his barber shop. We was passing his shop, going up Central Avenue; he was cutting somebody\u2019s hair, and we went straight on out Central Avenue up to Pecan; we went up Pecan Avenue and stayed at the drug store about ten minutes; went down Pecan to the railroad, came up Pecan and out High Street, crossed Clement and went down to Lamar and stayed behind the sign-board there until he came out of his shop. Yes, sir, I mean we hid and concealed ourselves and waited on the man to come out so we could rob him. After he was shot we ran. . . . We went back and got his money.\u201d\nAnd, finally, defendant said: \u201cI did not kill Mr. Ritter on December 13th, I didn\u2019t shoot him. Yes, sir, it was part of a plot. I again say I didn\u2019t kill him.\u201d\nAs witness for defendant, his grandmother testified: \u201cSince Joe growed up he likes to have his own way. It seems his mind don\u2019t go right like it ought to. Now, when he was small, I could get him to go most any way. Since he growed up, since he got that lick on his head, he got hit in the head with a brick in June, he has been sort-a 'modest\u2019 like, that was in June, 1940. He went to the hospital. He was in there from Saturday night till Thursday . . . Since that time he has acted like he didn\u2019t have good sense. Just sit and looked. I would say, 'Joe, what\u2019s the matter,\u2019 and he would say, 'Nothing.\u2019 He would say that any time, when he was up, sitting down he just sit and looked and looked. When he come home from the hospital he had a place over this eye, and that place bled two or three times. He had to go and have it dressed, but whether it broke the skull or not, I don\u2019t know. No, he has not acted since then like he did before. He acted crazy like around the house.\u201d\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in the first degree.\nJudgment: Death by asphyxiation.\nDefendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nJ. G. Newell and Hiram, P. Whitacre for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0514-01", "first_page_order": 556, "last_page_order": 563 }