{ "id": 8606111, "name": "STATE v. HENRY FRENCH", "name_abbreviation": "State v. French", "decision_date": "1945-06-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "276", "last_page": "285", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "225 N.C. 276" } ], "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": "81 S. E., 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "166 N. C., 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269600 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "327" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/166/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S. E., 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596411 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0028-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 455", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630934 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0455-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N. C., 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8597931 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "223 N. C., 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602236 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 Cal., 285", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "111 S. E., 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 795", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659280 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0795-01" ] }, { "cite": "149 S. E., 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "197 N. C., 445", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629574 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0445-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S. E., 573", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 719", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630362 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0719-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S. E., 416", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "174 N. C., 814", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11256004 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/174/0814-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 S. E., 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "214 N. C., 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630458 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 S. E., 475", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 989", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662303 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/0989-01" ] }, { "cite": "150 S. E., 678", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 82", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8597808 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0082-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S. E., 283", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "138 N. C., 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "19 S. E., 797", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "114 N. C., 885", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651777 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0885-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S. E., 327", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 780", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272418 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0780-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S. E., 431", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "118 N. C., 1113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654642 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/1113-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S. E., 458", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "166 N. C., 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269600 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/166/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S. E., 337", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "194 N. C., 28", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596411 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/194/0028-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 919, "char_count": 24256, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.782153416125801e-08, "percentile": 0.41517729412023635 }, "sha256": "8447e30de69deaa503fcd695513254f58d81e1033b4aa82c5dabdf2b745d2c51", "simhash": "1:be557c3d5256f673", "word_count": 4404 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:44.450219+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "\"WiNbobne, J., concurs in dissent." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. HENRY FRENCH." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Seawell, J.\nWe find no merit in the exceptions based on demurrer to the evidence as not being sufficient to sustain a verdict of guilty of . murder in the first degree. The evidence, which, because of these motions, we have summarized at some length, is ample in that respect and needs no special comment.\nAppellant\u2019s more serious assignments of error relate to the instructions given to the jury.\nOne of these assignments of error challenges the correctness of the judge\u2019s instruction on the necessity of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, contending that he assumed there was evidence tending to show that deceased came to her death at the hands of defendant, whereas the evidence, particularly that of the mortician, who testified that deceased\u2019s veinous system had been broken down, was deficient on that point. But without this testimony, evidence that deceased was bodily active the moment before, and immediately after repeated shots from a rifle in the hands of defendant was found dead with a wound through her chest, subsequently found .to have been inflicted by a rifle bullet, is certainly sufficient to go to the jury as to the cause of death and its infliction by the defendant. Also, later in the charge the court made appropriate reference to the necessity of proving that the wound so inflicted was the cause of death. The charge must be considered contextually. S. v. Hunt, 223 N. C., 173, 25 S. E. (2d), 598; S. v. Utley, 223 N. C., 39, 25 S. E. (2d), 195; S. v. Hairston, 222 N. C., 455, 23 S. E. (2d), 885.\nThe appellant further contends that the instruction to the jury set out in the statement of the case under Exception No. 9 deprived him of the benefit of his plea (and evidence thereunder), that the killing was done in his necessary and lawful self-defense. In support of this he cites S. v. MeHaffey, 194 N. C., 28, 138 S. E., 337, in which the instruction given was held to have deprived the defendant of his right of self-defense. Upon comparison of tbe cited case with tbe instruction bere given, we are of opinion tbat tbe contention is not meritorious.\nHowever, there is a further challenge to tbe instruction as not having again and immediately defined \u201cdeliberation,\u201d although that had been adequately and accurately defined in a preceding instruction. Beyond the familiar rule that the charge must be interpreted contextually, we have direct approval of the challenged instruction in S. v. McClure, 166 N. C., 321, 327, 81 S. E., 458. The instructions are practically identical, and for convenience in a word by word comparison, we quote from S. v. McClure, supra:\n\u201cDeliberation means to think about, to revolve over in one\u2019s mind; and if a person thinks about the performance of an act and determines in his mind to do that act, he had deliberated upon the act, gentlemen. Premeditation means to think beforehand, think over a matter beforehand; and where a person forms a purpose to kill another, and weighs this purpose in his mind long enough to form a fixed design to kill at a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how late, and pursuant to said fixed design kills said person, this would be a killing with premeditation and deliberation, and would be murder in the first degree. And the court charges you if you should find beyond a reasonable doubt, gentlemen, that prior to the time he killed the deceased he formed.the fixed purpose in his mind to kill him, and that pursuant to that purpose he did kill the deceased because of the purpose in his mind, and not because of any legal provocation that was given by the deceased, then the court charges you that the prisoner would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty to so find.\u201d\nWe have carefully considered the exceptions taken to the trial and examined the record for error, and we see no reason that would justify us in interfering with the result of the trial. We find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Seawell, J." }, { "text": "Stacy, C. J.,\ndissenting: One of the vital issues in the case was whether the defendant slew the deceased in cold blood or in the heat of passion, suddenly aroused by argument over the damage to his automobile. After correctly stating the elements of murder in the first degree to be the unlawful killing of a human being with malice and with premeditation and deliberation, the court then said: \u201cAnd the court charges you that if the State has satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed Duck'LeGrand with malice, and has further satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that prior to the time the defendant inflicted upon Duck LeGrand the fatal wound, the defendant had formed a fixed purpose in his mind to kill her, and that, pursuant to that purpose he did kill Duck LeGrand because of the purpose in his mind, and not because of any legal provocation given him, then the Court charges you that if the State has so satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty to so find.\u201d\nThis charge as applied to the facts of the instant record fails to draw any distinction between a fixed purpose \u201cdeliberately formed\u201d and one engendered from passion suddenly aroused. S. v. Thomas, 118 N. C., 1113, 24 S. E., 431; S. v. Walker, 173 N. C., 780, 92 S. E., 327. It sufficiently defines premeditation, but makes no reference to deliberation. S. v. Fuller, 114 N. C., 885, 19 S. E., 797. \u201cPremeditation\u201d imports prior consideration, \u201cthought of beforehand,\u201d while \u201cdeliberation\u201d signifies reflection, \u201cin a cool state of the blood.\u201d S. v. Exum, 138 N. C., 601, 50 S. E., 283; S. v. Evans, 198 N. C., 82, 150 S. E., 678. It may not be necessary in every case to refer to the two terms separately, but both ideas are essential to a complete definition of the capital offense. S. v. Exum, supra; S. v. Spivey, 132 N. C., 989, 43 S. E., 475. This was so at common law, and our statute dividing murder into degrees denominates any \u201cwillful, deliberate and premeditated killing\u201d as murder in the first degree. G. S., 14-17; S. v. Hawkins, 214 N. C., 326, 199 S. E., 284.\nHad the instruction excluded the idea of a killing from anger presently incited, and conveyed only the thought of a homicide from a fixed determination previously formed after weighing the matter, it would have sufficed without separate definition of premeditation and deliberation. S. v. Coffey, 174 N. C., 814, 94 S. E., 416; S. v. Exum, supra. But this is hardly its significance. S. v. Thomas, supra. An unlawful killing with malice and with premeditation falls short of murder in the first degree. The additional element of deliberation is necessary to make out the capital offense. S. v. Payne, 213 N. C., 719, 197 S. E., 573; S. v. Miller, 197 N. C., 445, 149 S. E., 590; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795, 111 S. E., 869; S. v. Thomas, supra. \u201cAny unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought is murder; but if nothing further characterizes the offense, it is murder in the second degree \u2014 to' constitute the higher offense, there must be willfulness, deliberation, premeditation.\u201d People v. Cox, 76 Cal., 285, quoted with approval in S. v. Fuller, supra.\nTrue it is, in other portions of the charge both terms are correctly defined, but here the court was undertaking to sum up the whole matter in a single sentence or instruction, as was attempted in S. v. MeHaffey, 194 N. C., 28, 138 S. E., 337, which resulted in a new trial.\nThe case of S. v. McClure, 166 N. C., 321, 81 S. E., 458, is cited as a controlling authority. There, after some hesitancy and much contextual interpretation, a similar instruction was upheld as applicable to the facts of that case. A deputy sheriff had been killed while attempting to make an arrest, following a small \u201criot\u201d and repeated threats on the part of the prisoner \u201cthat there was no G\u2014 d\u2014 s\u2014 o \u2014 \u2022 b\u2014 in the county who could arrest him; that he would kill any officer that undertook it.\u201d The prisoner offered no testimony. Here, the evidence of a \u201cwillful, deliberate and premeditated killing\u201d is not so clear, and the crucial facts are in dispute. The paucity of the instruction seems apparent.\n-1 would remand the case for another hearing.\n\"WiNbobne, J., concurs in dissent.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Stacy, C. J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.", "Brown & Mauney for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. HENRY FRENCH.\n(Filed 6 June, 1945.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 25\u2014\nIn a prosecution for murder, where the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that deceased, her husband and others, in the husband\u2019s automobile, were driving out of an alley into the highway, the defendant in his own car following, that the first car ran into the highway and stopped and defendant, following and in trying to get around the first car, hit a telephone pole, when the first car drove off and defendant backed from the post and drove home, that shortly thereafter defendant came up to the first car demanding damages and cursing and when deceased and other occupants of the car walked off, defendant followed, still arguing about his damages and cursing and threatening the whole party, none of whom apparently had any weapons, and finally defendant, telling deceased\u2019s party to wait until he got back, ran off to his'house near-by and coming back in a few minutes with a rifle, stuck the barrel into the car and fired four or five times and when deceased got out of the ear, defendant shot her in the back, as she looked away from him, and she fell and defendant ran, deceased being dead a few minutes thereafter, there was ample evidence for the jury and motion for judgment as of nonsuit properly denied.\n2. Same\u2014\nTestimony, in a prosecution for murder, of a mortician, who examined deceased\u2019s body shortly after her death, that deceased\u2019s veinous system liad broken down, is insufficient to prevent tbe case being submitted to tbe jury, where the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that deceased was alive and active one moment, and immediately after repeated shots from a rifle in the hands of defendant, was found dead with a rifle wound in her chest.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 53a : Homicide \u00a7 27a\u2014\n, A charge by the court to the jury must be construed contextually.\n4. Homicide \u00a7 4c\u2014\nDeliberation means to think about, to revolve in one\u2019s mind; and if a person thinks about the performance of an act and determines in his mind to do that act, he has deliberated upon that act. Premeditation means to think beforehand; and where a person forms a purpose to kill another and weighs this purpose in his mind long enough to form a fixed design to kill at. a subsequent time, no matter how soon or how late, and pursuant to said fixed design, kills said person, this would be a killing with premeditation and deliberation, and would be murder in the first degree.\nStacy, C. J., dissenting.\nWinborne, J., concurs in dissent.\nAppeal by defendant from Bobbitt, J., at October Term, 1944, of MONTGOMERY.\nTbe defendant was tried at tbe October Term, 1944, of tbe Montgomery Superior Court, upon an indictment charging bim with murder of Duck LeGrand.\nTbe evidence of tbe State tended substantially to sbow that James Richardson, driving Shang LeGrand\u2019s car, in which were Shang and his wife, Duck LeGrand, the deceased, and other persons, was going out of an alleyway towards the highway. French was driving his car along behind them. As Richardson came out of the alleyway and turned along the highway, French came out, also, and in trying to go around the car, hit a telephone pole. There was no collision between the cars. When the French car struck the telephone post, the LeGrand car stopped, then pulled off and went on to Wadeville. French backed away from the post and carried his car towards home. About 25 minutes later,' a State\u2019s witness met defendant going up the road, and defendant asked him \u201cwhere that damn Shang LeGrand was.\u201d Witness said that he did not know, and French replied that somebody was going to pay for his G \u2014 \u2014 damn ear. About that time Shang LeGrand\u2019s car passed, and defendant went on to where Shang\u2019s car was parked on the right-hand side of the road. Later witness found French at the LeGrand car arguing about his own ear and talking to James Richardson. Duck LeGrand and her husband were there also. French told Richardson that he wanted pay for the \u201cdamn damages.\u201d Richardson told him to wait until tomorrow and be would talk about it. Duck and Sbang and tbe rest of them walked down tbe road to \u201cCraven\u2019s bouse.\u201d Another person went up and got LeGrand\u2019s car and drove it, French standing on tbe side of it. Tbe car was driven about 40 yards from where they bad been talking. French kept arguing about damage to tbe car, and James kept telling him be would see him tomorrow. French replied, \u201cG-- damn it, wait till I come back, I will kill all you s. o. b.\u2019s.\u201d Duck LeGrand, Sbang LeGrand, James Richardson and Margaret Ingram were present. Witness bad not seen any previous fight, nor bad be seen any weapons of any kind in tbe bands of LeGrand and bis wife, or any of that party.\nTbe defendant then ran down through a cornfield about six or seven hundred yards to bis bouse; and some ten minutes later came running back with a rifle and ran around tbe side of tbe car where tbe driver was. He came by tbe side of tbe car where Sbang LeGrand was, stuck tbe barrel of tbe rifle in tbe ear and shot four or five times into tbe car. Duck LeGrand and Sbang LeGrand were sitting on tbe front seat of tbe car as tbe defendant approached on tbe driver\u2019s side. Witness did not hear either of tbe LeGrands or French say anything. French fired five or six times and Duck started to get out of tbe car. She got out on tbe running board, and defendant fired again, and she fell. He was standing near tbe front of tbe car when be shot Duck Legrand. Her face was turned away from defendant, her back to him, and when she fell, defendant turned around and ran.\nE. T. Reynolds, a mortician of fifteen years\u2019 experience, and licensed by tbe State, testified that on tbe night of September 2nd be saw tbe bodies of Duck LeGrand and Sbang LeGrand, both in front of tbe bank building. Duck LeGrand was in tbe back of tbe car, down in tbe foot. Witness prepared her body for burial, finding a bullet wound in her back, about an inch to tbe left of her spinal column and down below tbe shoulder blade. Tbe veinous system was punctured somewhere in tbe thorax or tbe chest. Tbe bullet wound in tbe back was about tbe size of a .22-caliber rifle bullet.\nAnother witness for tbe State testified that be pulled tbe Sbang LeGrand car out from tbe \u201cpiccolo\u201d (restaurant) out in front of Craven\u2019s, and drove it a distance. French was standing on the running board on the driver\u2019s side. There was no one in tbe car at that time. After tbe car was pulled in front of Craven and Beatrice' Turner\u2019s bouse, tbe defendant began to curse Duck LeGrand and Margaret, her daughter, in tbe presence of Sbang, Arthur Hill and Henry Ingram, Duck Le-Grand\u2019s boy, a lad about 15 or 16 years old. Defendant called Duck a s. o. b., and after be called her that, be left and said be was going home and get bis gun and come back and kill all tbe s. o. b.\u2019s. He broke and ran through a cornfield. Witness was not present when be came back.\nArthur Hill testified that he was with Shang LeGrand and Duck, the deceased woman, and James Richardson. Duck and Shang drove in front of Miss Flora\u2019s, on the right-hand side, and stopped, and the party was there a few minutes when defendant walked up and began talking to Richardson about the damage. Richardson asked him to wait, until tomorrow and defendant said, \u201cI am going to have some damn damage tonight. He was talking to Richardson, Duck and Shang LeGrand. French was cursing Duck LeGrand and Shang LeGrand, and then John D. McCall came, got the car and drove it on down in front of Craven\u2019s, with French hanging on the side of the car. Duck and Shang went on down behind the car after it had been driven on. Then the argument started again, with defendant cursing them and repeating that he intended to have some damn damages. He then ran up the road, telling Shang and his wife to be there when he got back, he was going to kill every s. o. b. that was there. He came back in about 20 minutes, had his rifle up when witness broke and ran. Defendant ran around on the driver\u2019s side and poked the rifle into the car, and witness heard four or five shots. Duck and Shang were in the car at the time. Later, he saw Duck lying on the back seat, dead.\nHenry Ingram testified that Duck LeGrand was his mother and Shang LeGrand was his stepfather. Witness was standing in his grandmother\u2019s yard when defendant came up to the automobile. Witness was about 25 or 30 yards from the automobile in which his mother and stepfather were sitting. The defendant was standing there shooting into the LeGrand car in which were his mother and stepfather when the witness first saw him. He saw him fire four or five shots into the car.\nWitness started towards the car, and defendant turned around and shot him in the leg. The defendant was standing beside the car when he fired on the witness, and witness heard him fire again after he went back into his grandmother\u2019s house.\nWitness returned to the ear, found his mother lying on her face in the back of the car, picked her up, put her in an automobile and carried her to Dr. Harris\u2019 office. She was dead when witness picked her up. Witness did not have any weapon, nor did he find any weapon about the body of his mother when he picked her up.\nIvey Hall, Chief of Police of Troy, testified that he brought the defendant to the sheriff\u2019s office or jail. He asked French why he shot those people, and the reply w\u00e1s that they had been \u201cpicking at him and he got tired of it, and said he would show them who to mess with.\u201d\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss as of nonsuit and for a directed verdict of not guilty as to the count or allegation of murder in the first degree. The motions were overruled, and the defendant excepted.\nThe defendant testified that be was 34 or 35 years old and lived in Troy; that he had known Duck LeGrand and Shang Legrand all his days.\nDefendant testified that they were at \u201cMiss Flora Kelly\u2019s 'piccolo/ \u201d a short distance at the rear of the courthouse. He saw Duck and Shang LeGrand come out from the \u201cpiccolo\u201d in a car; that they started up ahead of witness \u201cand made a bad drive in front of me/\u2019 in consequence of which defendant bore to the left and hit a \u201ctelegram\u201d post and cut it down. Defendant testified that he carried his car to the house and returned to the \u201cpiccolo,\u201d saw Shang LeGrand when he left the highway and turned to go into the \u201cpiccolo walk.\u201d They were up where the post had been cut down and were talking about it, and Duck LeGrand and her two daughters and her son, Arthur Hill and Henry Ingram and McCall\u2019s boy came out from the \u201cpiccolo.\u201d Duck said, \u201cShang, come on and get in the car, this ain\u2019t no place to settle a wreck; get in the car and we will go down here and settle it.\u201d One of the women asked him to stand on the fender. There were seven in the car, and defendant standing on the fender. They drove down close to where the shooting took place and stopped. There they tried to throw witness off, saying that he did not have any G-damn business on there. Witness testified they all got out of the car and \u201cbegan to surround me with weapons in hand, and I begged and pleaded to them not to jump on me with the weapons. Duck LeGrand had a pocket knife; her two daughters, Margaret and Judy, had a pocket knife; Shang had a pocket knife, and her son, Henry, had a stick; and Arthur Hill had his hand stuck down in his pocket; I don\u2019t know what he had. I began to back up and beg and plead to them to not jump on me. Arthur Hill stepped around sort of behind me in this direction. He said, 'G- damn it, don\u2019t back up this way; stay in there; don\u2019t come up this way.\u2019 Henry Ingram came through the crowd and said, 'Let me get over there with that stick, I will fix him, G-damn him/ and so I ran.\u201d\n\u201cWhen I ran toward the house some of them ran after me. I didn\u2019t look back to see which ones it was after me; and I ran on and got tangled up in some wire. Some of them, I don\u2019t know who it was, threw a rock or two at me, and I got out of the wire and ran to the house. They absolutely ran after me when I went running towards my house. I was followed pretty close to the house.\u201d\nDefendant further testified, in substance, that they had him scared, and he was begging them not to jump on him with their weapons; that when he got to the house he picked up a rifle and went out into the yard and found two people. He went on and saw Shang LeGrand and Arthur Hill going back in the direction of the \u201cpiccolo.\u201d Defendant then went back down to the car and walked up to it with his rifle; \u201cthey didn\u2019t know I bad a rifle.\u201d He told Sbang be wanted to speak to bim and see what\" be bad done to them and why they wanted to treat bim like they bad. Sbang cursed bim and told bim be was going to kill bim, bad bis knife in bis band. Defendant testifies be backed up and pointed bis gun and told bim to stop, and be didn\u2019t stop; \u201cbe advanced towards me, and I pointed up my gun and I shot at bim.\u201d He turned about and went to bis door and said, \u201cDulcie, band me that thing, this s. o. b. has got a gun; I am going to kill bim.\u201d He went to the driver\u2019s side and Duck, or Dulcie, was standing on the right-band side of the car with the door open. That was the opposite side from the one Sbang went to. He opened the door and reached over and told her, \u201cburry up.\u201d Defendant then shot through the windshield, didn\u2019t know whether Sbang bad a gun in there or anything; said they made bim think they wanted to kill bim, so be shot through the windshield,.then stepped around to the side of the car and shot through the car. Defendant testified be didn\u2019t try to shoot Duck LeGrand, and that be bad no intention to kill Duck or Sbang LeGrand.\nDefendant testified that when be got bis rifle from the bouse be went straight back to where the LeGrands were, \u201cright behind the automobile and didn\u2019t stop.\u201d\nAfter some evidence in rebuttal, the State rested and defendant renewed bis motion for judgment as of nonsuit and for a directed verdict of not guilty on the count of murder in the first degree. The motions were overruled, and defendant excepted.\nInter alia,, the judge charged the jury as follows:\n\u201cBefore you can return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, the burden is upon the State to satisfy you further from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed Duck LeGrand not only unlawfully and with malice, but with premeditation and deliberation, and the Court charges you that if the State has satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed Duck LeGrand with malice, and has further satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that prior to the time the defendant inflicted upon Duck LeGrand the fatal wound, the defendant bad formed a fixed purpose in bis mind to kill her, and that, pursuant to that purpose be did bill Duck LeGrand because of the purpose in bis mind, and not because of any legal provocation given bim, then the Court charges you that if the State has so satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant would be guilty of murder in the first degree, and it would be your duty to so find.\u201d (Defendant\u2019s Exception No. 6.)\n\u201cNow, if the State has satisfied you from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant unlawfully killed Duck LeGrand with malice and with premeditation and deliberation, it would be your duty to return a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, and you would return your verdict in these words: \u2018Guilty of murder in the first degree.\u2019 \u201d (Defendant\u2019s Exception No. 9.)\nThe jury returned a verdict of murder in the first degree. Defendant moved to set aside the verdict for errors committed in the trial, and the motion was denied.\nTo the judgment of death rendered upon the verdict of the jury, the defendant objected and excepted, and appealed to this Court.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.\nBrown & Mauney for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0276-01", "first_page_order": 324, "last_page_order": 333 }