{ "id": 8626041, "name": "STATE v. CLAUDE NEEDHAM", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Needham", "decision_date": "1952-05-21", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "555", "last_page": "568", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "235 N.C. 555" } ], "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": "55 S.E. 2d 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631573 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 895", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 684", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612950 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0684-01" ] }, { "cite": "15 S.E. 1038", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651974 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/111/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S.E. 575", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "131 N.C. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662793 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/131/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 713", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 612", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627716 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0612-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 341", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607201 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0341-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S.E. 2d 143", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11307657 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "2 S.E. 2d 867", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N.C. 660", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631293 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0660-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 56", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599244 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0056-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 908", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629214 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0205-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 456", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599098 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 429", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603127 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0429-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 N.C. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11277347 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/63/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 S.E. 2d 588", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "225 N.C. 115", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8601198 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0115-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 268", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 382", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608601 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0382-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.C. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276643 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S.E. 868", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626174 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 472", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622996 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p. 64" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 S.E. 2d 272", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "234 N.C. 354", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622098 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "p. 358" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/234/0354-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 1190, "char_count": 37788, "ocr_confidence": 0.494, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.8121742645694935e-07, "percentile": 0.837672968578477 }, "sha256": "95a27f861ca193e0451a2d7f632239cd48f7865ac81ab2d9354340a62ac3dfc0", "simhash": "1:b5d3c5269aa47597", "word_count": 6944 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:11.505162+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. CLAUDE NEEDHAM." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JOHNSON, J.\nThe crucial exception presented by this appeal tests the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury over the defendant\u2019s motions for judgment as of nonsuit, made in apt time under the provisions of G.S. 15-173.\nThe gist of the State\u2019s case as gleaned from the testimony of the witnesses called by the Solicitor is in substance as follows :\nFor eight years or more the defendant, father of nine children, had been engaged in illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, mother of four children. The defendant began visiting the Lawson home when the family lived on the Napier farm about four miles from Pilot Mountain. About 1943 the Lawson family moved to the Jim Hill place, which adjoins the defendant\u2019s farm. It was then that the association between the defendant and the deceased\u2019s wife became more intimate and -constant. The wife of the deceased testified she started having intercourse with the defendant two or three months after the family moved to the Hill place. She said: \u201cI got to know Mr. Needham when he kept coming there and all drinking together. Sometimes he furnished the liquor and sometimes my husband.\u201d The family stayed at the Hill place three years, and then moved to the Carson place where they remained a year. Mrs. Lawson said the defendant came to see her three or four times a week while she and the family were living at the Hill and Carson places.\nFrom the Carson place the family moved to Sid Johnson\u2019s at German-ton in Stokes County, a distance of some 20 miles from Needham\u2019s home. The wife of the deceased testified Needham \u201cdidn\u2019t like us moving to the Johnson place because it was too far,\u201d but he \u201ccame about every week-end and sometimes during the week. . . . Tie wanted us to move to the Boyles place near where he lived. . . . He said a good way to get us out would be to burn the house to get us away from down there. . . .\u201d\nAfter one year at the Johnson place the family moved to the \u201cmountain at Pinnacle\u201d about 1948. (Distance from defendant\u2019s home not given.) The deceased\u2019s wife said the defendant kept coming \u201cto see us about the same as when we lived at the other places,\u201d but he \u201cwanted us to move to the Boyles place.\u201d\nThe family made the last move in January, 1951, \u2014 this time to the Nelson place, where the fire occurred. Needham continued to visit the Lawson home \u201ctwo or three times a week\u201d down to the time of the fatal event.\nThe evidence discloses that during all this time the deceased knew about the illicit relations between his wife and the defendant. She testified: \u201cMy husband knew about the relationship between Needham and me.\u201d The deceased and the defendant appeared to be on friendly terms, except at times when they were drinking. On such occasions they quarreled, threatened each other and slapped each other, but as the wife put it, there was \u201cno serious injury.\u201d Needham frequently brought liquor and sometimes groceries. \u201cHe kinda wanted to be boss.\u201d\nThe tenant house on the Nelson place in which the Lawsons lived was located 300 or 400 feet west of State Highway No. 66 in Stokes County. There was a \u201cfront yard or driveway going all the way from the highway to the house. . . . nothing to interfere with . . . view of the house from the highway,\u201d except a pack house located between the highway and the house. \u201c. . . woods extend close to the north side of the house and out near the highway. There are two tobacco barns located across the road \u25a0 (highway) from the house. . . . There was a well behind the house very close to the house . . . The woods behind the house were about 50 feet from the well . . .\u201d\nThe house \u201cwas a five room, one-story frame house. . . . Approaching the house from the front there were three bedrooms on the right-hand side, and on the left-hand side there was a living room or front room, and the kitchen was directly behind the front room. There was no hall in the house. There were two outside doors. One entering from the front porch into th\u00e9 front room and the other from the kitchen out onto the back porch.\u201d There was no outside door leading from the back bedroom. To get out of that bedroom it was necessary to go through the kitchen. \u201cThere were three doors in the kitchen \u2014 one opening into the west bedroom, one outdoors, and one into the front room.\u201d\nOnly the two younger Lawson children, a girl 16 and a boy 10, were living with the family, and both were visiting away from home the Sunday afternoon of the fire.\nThe defendant came to the Lawson home the Saturday before the fire. Lawson\u2019s wife testified: \u201cHe came in a blue Eord . . . about 3 o\u2019clock. . . . He brought about a quart of liquor in a half gallon can. . . . We were curing tobacco at the barn . . . across the road. . . . We all lay behind the barn on a quilt.\u201d\nEarly the next morning the three rode off in Needham\u2019s car to get whiskey and groceries. They returned about 8 o\u2019clock with a quart of whiskey, some groceries, and a half gallon of kerosene oil. Needham\u2019s car was left parked in the yard near the pack house. Mrs. Lawson had built a fire in the stove to cook breakfast and it was still burning when they returned. They started drinking early.\nLater in the morning Walter Inman, Curt Shelton and Claude Gordon arrived on the scene.\nInman testified the three of them went to the Lawson place in Gordon\u2019s pick-up truck, taking about half a gallon of whiskey. They arrived around 10 or 11 o\u2019clock. Inman said: \u201c. . . I was drinking right smart. The three of us went into the house taking liquor with us. We found Claude Needham and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson there . . . setting in the kitchen at the table. I started passing around the liquor. ... I drank about a cup full of liquor, and was drunk and went in the front room and went to sleep ... on the floor beside the couch.\u201d Later \u201csome kind of noise woke me up. I jumped up and turned around, couldn\u2019t think where I was. I had been pretty drunk, and whirled around to leave when I saw a whole lot of smoke and a little fire in the kitchen. I saw a man through the smoke in the kitchen standing up with something in his hand and heard him say, \u2018G\u2014 damn, G\u2014 damn.\u2019 I don\u2019t know whether it was a stick, or pine knot or what it was in his hand, but it was on fire and he started cursing and then he turned and his arms obstructed a view of his face. I couldn\u2019t tell how far in the kitchen the man was. I don\u2019t remember who it was or what size man it was but he was cursing and I thought he was trying to burn the house up and I left there. I ran out the front door and into Curt Shelton who was setting in the swing in the front porch. I told him Claude Gordon was trying to burn the house up.\u201d Then, according to Inman, both men ran around the side of the house, Shelton tried to get in the house at the back, and then both men ran off into the woods,- where they remained 15 or 20 minutes while the house burned. Inman further said: \u201cWhen I went out the front door and saw Curt Shelton (in the swing) ... I didn\u2019t see nobody else in front of the house. I didn\u2019t see any automobile in the yard at the house. . . . When I went out the door and started around to the right, I didn\u2019t see nobody leave the house and didn\u2019t see nobody going in the direction of the road and the tobacco barn. . . .\u201d\nCurt Shelton testified he went to the Lawson home with Inman and Claude Gordon; that he carried there about three pints of liquor in a half gallon jar and put it on the table in the kitchen where Mr. and Mrs. Lawson and the defendant Needham were sitting around the table eating. He said they all continued to drink, and after a while he left the kitchen and went to the swing on the porch and went to sleep. He said: \u201cI figured I was drunk, and don\u2019t know what time that was. The last time I saw Needham, he was in the kitchen and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson went out to the well and was drinking water. I was asleep (in the swing) when Inman woke me up. ... I was not conscious from the time I lay down there until awakened by Inman. ... I saw smoke all around the eaves of the house. ... I started to go in the front door and saw an awful smoke and went around to the back where I saw the first blaze in the kitchen. I was not able to go in. I was too drunk. I heard Mr. Lawson in there calling sort of low. I knew his voice, hollering, 'Oh, Lordy, help me.\u2019 I couldn\u2019t understand him. I heard it at the kitchen window. . . . The voice sounded close to the window. ... I don\u2019t know whether Mr. Lawson was drunk or not the last time I saw him in the kitchen. . . .\u201d Then after failing to get in the kitchen, Shelton said he and Inman went on to the woods and stayed there probably 10 or 15 minutes before returning to the bouse. He said Needham\u2019s 49 blue Ford was parked in the yard in front of the house when he arrived that morning. \u201cWhen Inman woke me up, if the car was there I didn\u2019t pay any attention to it.\u201d Shelton further said that earlier that day he had trouble with Gordon and Gordon left.\nClaude Gordon testified he went to the Lawson home with Shelton and Inman, but stayed there only about an hour. He said: \u201cCurt (Shelton) smacked me and I got in my truck and left. ... I got home ten to twelve and didn\u2019t go back over there any more that day.\u201d\nThe wife of the deceased testified that sometime during the morning she left the kitchen. \u201cWhen I got drunk I usually left the house and lay down and went to sleep.\u201d On this occasion she said she went back below the house and lay down. \u201cI don\u2019t remember where ... or how long I was there. I don\u2019t remember who was at the house when I left. It seems to me the best I remember Claude (Needham) had left.\u201d When she waked up and arrived at the house, it was in flames.\nThe defendant was arrested about midnight after the fire. He was found at his home asleep at a tobacco barn. He appeared to be sober. He \u201cdidn\u2019t seem to be excited\u201d when arrested. He admitted he was over at Lawsons that afternoon. When asked what time he left, he hesitated at first, \u2014 \u201csaid he didn\u2019t have any time and didn\u2019t know. . . . He finally said he left there about 4 o\u2019clock.\u201d He was then interrogated about his route home from the Lawson place, and the evidence tends to show \u201cit would be five miles nearer by Old Rock House to Pilot Mountain than the way he took.\u201d\nOne of the officers testified the defendant stated to him that sometime in the afternoon \u201che moved his car from the pack house up across the hard surface road behind the tobacco barn, and . . . lay down on a pallet and went to sleep, where he and Mr. Lawson slept the night before, and when he got up he looked towards the house and saw Shelton in the swing on the porch, and then . . . got in his car and left and said nothing to nobody. . . . He saw no fire at that time. . . . There wasn\u2019t any smoke at the house at all at that time. He said he didn\u2019t know the house was on fire until he was arrested . . .\u201d\nWill Hicks testified he passed the Lawson place on the highway twice the afternoon of the fire. The first time, around 2:30 or 3, he saw a car parked behind the barn across the road. It looked like a black ear, but he couldn\u2019t tell what kind. When he came back about 4, the same car was there at the barn. He saw no one about the barn or car either time he passed. About 30 minutes after he last passed, he saw smoke \u2014 white at first then later black \u2014 and on investigation found the Lawson house on fire.\nG. Willis Burrell testified be passed tbe Lawson place about 3 :35 tbe afternoon in question and saw Mr. Lawson coming out of tbe barn. \u201cHe bent over like be was mending tbe fire and be raised on up. I bave seen bim often before, sometimes three or four times a day passing by there. Tbe barn is not but about 10 feet from the road. Mr. Lawson did not seem to be drunk. I didn\u2019t see anyone else around tbe barn. I saw a ear behind tbe barn, a blue looking Ford, don\u2019t know what model but seemed like a 49 or 50. I went straight on home (about a mile and a half) . . . and (later) saw smoke. . . . about 30 or 40 minutes after I passed. . . . We went to tbe fire.\nMrs. Yance Jones testified she and her husband came by tbe Lawson place tbe afternoon in question \u201csometime before 4 or 5 o\u2019clock.\u201d My husband was driving and no one else was with us. I saw a man cross tbe road and go between tbe barns. He came straight across tbe road from tbe one that goes to tbe Lawson home. I didn\u2019t know who it was and be was some distance away. He bad on a white looking shirt and a blue bat. He was as far away from me as tbe distance between tbe two barns and was traveling afoot pretty fast. (One witness said tbe barns were \u201cfarther apart than 100 feet,\u201d another said \u201cit is about 75 yards between tbe two . . . barns). ... I don\u2019t bave any idea who tbe man was. ... I didn\u2019t see anything or anybody at tbe barn and didn\u2019t notice whether there was a car there or not.\u201d After reaching home 10 or 15 minutes later, she saw smoke and on investigation found tbe Lawson home was on fire.\nYance Jones testified that as be and bis wife drove by on tbe way home be \u201csaw a sorter blue looking Ford sitting behind tbe tobacco barn. . . . I did not see a man cross tbe road near tbe Lawsons or near tbe tobacco barn. My wife later told me that she had seen a man cross tbe road. We went on to the bouse and down to our tobacco barn. After we bad been there awhile we saw smoke. ... It was about 10 or 15 minutes after we bad turned into our bouse.\u201d As be drove on to tbe Lawson bouse, be said, \u201cI didn\u2019t see tbe automobile sitting behind tbe barn when I returned.\u201d\nMrs. Johnny Boles testified she lives about a quarter of a mile north of tbe Lawson\u2019s, \u201cright on tbe side of tbe road,\u201d and that she bad seen bim (Needham) passing three or four times a week since tbe Lawsons moved to tbe Nelson place. She said on this afternoon \u201cI saw Mr. Needham going north toward Sam Simmons\u2019 service station. I didn\u2019t see anybody in tbe car with bim. About thirty minutes after I saw bim pass ... I saw smoke in tbe direction of tbe Lawson bouse. . . . when we got there tbe bouse was beginning to fall in.\u201d\nJack Roberts testified be lives south of tbe Lawson place \u2014 a mile and a half from tbe Lawsons on a dirt road about a quarter of a mile off Highway No. 66, and was curing tobacco at bis barn on tbe Sunday afternoon of tbe fire. He said be saw some smoke between 4 and 5 o\u2019clock and started to the Lawson borne and \u201cmet Claude Needbam in a blue Ford. He was traveling pretty fast, about 40 or 45 miles an hour. . . . He was going south towards the gap of tbe mountain. It was about a mile and a quarter from where I met Needham to the Lawson home. . . .\u201d\nThe defendant told the officers he went home by way of Pilot Mountain Inn, where he stopped and got a sandwich. Officer Christian testified the defendant could have gone either by Sam Simmons\u2019 or the Eock House Church Eoad; that the distance from the Lawson home to Pilot Mountain Inn by the Church Eoad is 9.6 miles, by Mount Olive and Chestnut Grove it is 17.4%. Officer Christian said the defendant told the officers that night \u201che went to Mt. Olive Church and by Chestnut Grove Church and on to 52 at Dalton and on up to Pilot Mountain Inn. Sheriff Johnson testified: \u201cI guess it would be five miles nearer by the Old Eock House to Pilot Mountain than the way he took.\u201d But \u201cat that time they were working on this road and grading it.\u201d\nThe evidence also tends to show traveling south on Highway No. 66, the way the defendant allegedly went home, a dirt road leads off from the highway \u201cabout a quarter of a mile below the Lawson house and circles around and comes back to the same highway on what is known as the Gap Mountain. . . . The road was a bumpy dirt road.\u201d The witness Jack Eoberts lives on this road. Over this road the distance from the Lawson\u2019s to the Gap was half a mile farther than the direct route down Highway No. 66.\nOfficer Christian further said that the night the defendant was arrested he \u201cdenied he took the dirt road.\u201d But \u201c. . . next day when I talked to him he told me he took the dirt road that (the) Eoberts boy lived on and come out over at the Gap.\u201d Needham also told this witness he had on \u201ca light shirt with a black dot in it,\u201d the day of the fire.\nM. M. Gordon testified he was returning to his home near Pilot Mountain from Hanging Eock by way of the Eock House Church Eoad. \u201cAfter we saw the smoke a dark looking car went by that was a Ford. This was about 300 or 400 yards from the Lawson place. The car was going pretty fast. We stopped at the fire and . . . saw a couple of men in the yard and the couple crossed the yard and stepped up on the porch and it looked like they were looking in the window. . . . and when we got about half way down to the house they stepped off of the porch and went to the left of the house and I never saw any more of them. I don\u2019t know whether that was Curt Shelton and Inman or not. As we started around the corner of the house we heard a voice behind the house and as I got around the right-hand corner a man went through the woods and I turned and went to the left and turned to the window and heard a voice. The two men we saw on the porch when we started went to the left-hand side facing the road. I saw the other man on the right-hand side and didn\u2019t know any of them. I beard a man\u2019s voice in tbe bouse but could not distinguish anything be said. He was kinder groaning and puffing. ... I didn\u2019t see Curt Shelton and Inman around there and I know them. ... I got there before Vance Jones did. . . . The man I saw went off to the right, north. That wasn\u2019t in the direction of the road hut was going back from the road. The man went off towards the back of the house in the opposite direction from where the tobacco barns across the road are. The automobile I met was 400 yards down the road before I saw someone running off. . . . The other man I saw went to the right down to the woods. . . . (he) had on a dark colored shirt. ... I was about 50 yards or something like that from the men I saw. . . .\u201d\nCurt Shelton, recalled, testified: \u201cThat me and Inman went around to the left south side of the house. ... I left there with Inman and we went around the house together. We went to the woods together. I don\u2019t know whether he was in front or behind.\u201d\nJohn J. Coon testified he passed the Lawson place about 4:30 the Sunday afternoon in question. He said: \u201cI saw Mr. Gordon and we walked down from the road together. There were just two people there ahead of us and I didn\u2019t know them. ... I don\u2019t know that it was Shelton and Inman. They went around the house south, heading west. . . . They went together . . . into the woods,. . . I didn\u2019t see anything more of them. . . . The first blaze I saw was in the northwest corner. I heard a groaning, inside the house. ... We pulled the screen off and raised the window and Mr. Gordon shoved me up into it but when we did this smoke came over and closed it up. . . . but (I) still couldn\u2019t make it. ... I later saw the J ones hoy and he made an attempt to get in the house. . . . The only men I saw were the two that went around the south side of the house.\u201d\nDeputy Sheriff Christian testified he went to the Lawson place after the fire was about over. A few people were still there. \u201cThey had just got the body out. . . . There was just a stub they had in a small tin tub.\u201d\nHe also said he went to the Lawson home the next day and found \u201ccooking utensils and pans setting on the stove lids. All doors were closed and the lids on.\u201d\nOver the defendant\u2019s objection, Mrs. Lawson and her daughter were permitted to testify that while the family lived at the Carson place they found under the kitchen safe some chips and paper that appeared to have been partly burned. And witnesses also were permitted to testify over objection that oil was found in the well once after the family moved to the Nelson place. However, there was no evidence tending to show when or by whom or under what circumstances the oil was put in the well or the chips and paper were placed under the safe. And there was no further evidence of explanation tending to connect the defendant with either event.\nIt thus appears that the State\u2019s case as developed in the court below rests almost entirely upon circumstantial evidence. Such evidence when properly understood and applied is a recognized and accepted instrumentality in the ascertainment of truth. S. v. Holland, 234 N.C. 354, p. 358, 67 S.E. 2d 272.\nHowever, where circumstantial evidence is relied on to convict as in the instant case, the rule is, as stated by Stacy, C. J., in S. v. Harvey, 228 N.C. 62, p. 64, 44 S.E. 2d 472: \u201cthat the facts established or adduced on the hearing must be of such a nature and so connected or related as to point unerringly to the defendant\u2019s guilt and to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis.\u201d See also S. v. Stiwinter, 211 N.C. 278, 189 S.E. 868; S. v. Matthews, 66 N.C. 106; S. v. Holland, supra.\n\u201cMoreover, the guilt of a person charged with the commission of a crime is not to be inferred merely from facts consistent with his guilt. They must be inconsistent with his innocence.\u201d S. v. Webb, 233 N.C. 382, top p. 387, 64 S.E. 2d 268. See also S. v. Harvey, supra; S. v. Murphy, 225 N.C. 115, 33 S.E. 2d 588.\n\u201cEvidence which merely shows it possible for the fact in issue to be as alleged, or which raises a mere conjecture that it was so, is an insufficient foundation for a verdict and should not be left to the jury.\u201d S. v. Webb, supra, quoting from S. v. Vinson, 63 N.C. 335. See also S. v. Johnson, 199 N.C. 429, 154 S.E. 730; S. v. Boyd, 223 N.C. 79, 25 S.E. 2d 456; S. v. Murphy, supra; S. v. Palmer, 230 N.C. 205, 52 S.E. 2d 908.\nTrue, in cases wherein the State must rely on circumstantial evidence for conviction, it is for the jury to determine the weight and credit, if any, to be given the facts shown in evidence and the inference to be drawn therefrom. Therefore, the question whether the facts shown in evidence are so connected or related as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence and point unerringly to the guilt of the accused involves questions of fact to be resolved by deduction and inference of the jury. However, on motion for nonsuit, it is a question of law for the court to determine, in the first instance, whether the evidence adduced, when considered in its light most favorable to the State, is of sufficient probative force to justify the jury in drawing the affirmative inference of guilt. See S. v. Madden, 212 N.C. 56, 192 S.E. 859; S. v. Jones, 215 N.C. 660, 2 S.E. 2d 867; S. v. Miller, 220 N.C. 660, 18 S.E. 2d 143; S. v. Alston, 233 N.C. 341, 64 S.E. 2d 3; S. v. Massengill, 228 N.C. 612, 46 S.E. 2d 713; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, Sec. 210, pp. 453 and 454.\nIt may be conceded that the testimony of Inman, when taken as true and considered in its light most favorable to the State, is sufficient to support the inference that the fire was of incendiary origin. But it does not follow therefrom that Needham was the incendiary. Inman in his testimony neither identified the man he saw in the kitchen with the stick of fire, nor described him as resembling tbe defendant. In fact, the record discloses that after Inman saw the man in the kitchen he rushed out to the swing on the porch, awakened his friend Shelton, and \u201ctold him Claude Gordon was trying to burn the house up.\u201d\nThus we are at grips with the question of identity \u2014 the question whether the evidence in its over-all aspects is sufficient to show presence at the scene and opportunity of the defendant to commit the alleged crimes. Here the State points to the evidence tending to show the defendant\u2019s car was seen parked near the tobacco barn before the fire and that it was not seen there after the fire was discovered and that people along the road saw him driving in the opposite direction about the time the smoke from the fire was first seen.\nHowever, this line of evidence seems to be entirely consistent with the defendant\u2019s statement made to the officers. He told them he left the drinking party at the house earlier that day, moved his car from the yard to the tobacco barn, lay down and went to sleep on the pallet at the barn; that he awoke about 4 o\u2019clock in the afternoon, looked in the direction of the house, saw Curt Shelton in the swing, got in his car and left. This statement is corroborated by much of the State\u2019s evidence. That Shelton was asleep in the swing is shown by his testimony and also that of Inman. Mrs. Lawson, in relating how she, after becoming intoxicated, left the drinking party in the kitchen and went back below the .house and lay down, said \u201cThe best I remember Claude (the defendant) had left.\u201d Several of the State\u2019s witnesses said the defendant\u2019s car was parked in the yard that morning. That it was moved, as he claimed, is borne out by the testimony of Inman and Shelton. Each testified that when they discovered the fire and ran out the front of the house the car was not seen in the front yard.\nFor the purpose of showing presence of the defendant at the house, the State relies in large part on the testimony of Mrs. Yance Jones in which she said she and her husband passed just before the fire and that she \u201csaw a man cross the road and go between the (tobacco) barns. He came straight across the road from the one that goes to the Lawson home.\u201d\nThis testimony is without substantial probative force as tending either to show presence of the defendant at the house or to connect him with an incendiary burning, for these reasons: The witness, Mrs. Jones, said she had no \u201cidea who the man was . . . just happened to glance there and saw him.\u201d He was some 300 or 400 feet from the house, crossing a \u201cheavily traveled highway.\u201d To infer that the man Mrs. Jones saw was the person who set fire to the house would be at variance with much of the other evidence of the State, and especially with the testimony of Inman. It is noted that when Inman awoke and saw the man in the kitchen \u201cwith something in his hands ... on fire,\u201d at that time, according to the testimony of both. Inman and Shelton, smoke was pouring \u201cout the eaves of the house,\u201d and the fire had reached the point the smoke had changed from white to black. Nevertheless, both Mrs. Jones and her husband said nothing about seeing smoke in the direction of the house just across the road at the time she said she saw the man crossing the road. According to her further testimony and that of her husband, it was some 15 minutes later before they saw any smoke in the direction of the Lawson house. Also, Inman testified (as did Shelton) that when he ran out of the house after discovering the fire, no one was seen leaving the front or back of the house.\nThus, it may not be logically inferred that the man Inman saw in the kitchen with the fire stick was the same man Mrs. Jones saw crossing the highway. The more reasonable inference seems to be that the man Inman saw in the house with the stick of fire is the same man the witness M. M. Gordon said he saw when he first reached the Lawson house (and Gordon and witness Coon were the first to arrive at the scene). Witness Gordon said as he approached the house and turned the corner \u201ca man went through the woods . . . That wasn\u2019t in the direction of the road. . . . The man went off toward the back of the house in the opposite direction from where the tobacco barns across the road are.\u201d This witness also testified he had previously met on the highway a man in a Eord car going in the other direction (the intended implication being that the man so met was the defendant Needham). Also, Mrs\". Jones said the man she saw crossing the road had on a white shirt. The man Gordon saw dash off into the woods \u201chad on a dark colored shirt.\u201d Besides, there is no direct evidence in the record indicating that the defendant was ever seen at the house after the drinking party ended earlier that day and after his car was moved from the yard to the tobacco barn.\nNor is the State\u2019s case materially bolstered by its line of testimony by which it sought to show that the defendant harbored a design or scheme to burn the Lawson dwelling. The single intimation that the defendant entertained any such thought is found in the testimony of the deceased\u2019s wife. She said the defendant was displeased when the family moved to the Johnson place because it was too far \u2014 about 20 miles \u2014 from his home. \u201cHe wanted us. to move closer by . . . He said a good way to get us out would be to burn the house. He didn\u2019t make any threat, \u2014 just spoke about it.\u201d This was three or four years before the fire. The record indicates the Lawson family moved at the end of that year and that they moved a second time before going to the Nelson place where the fire occurred. The record reflects nothing thereafter tending to show, or connect the defendant with, any plan or scheme to burn the house. It would seem that this single intimation of a threat, when viewed in its logical setting, has scant evidential value as tending to show that the defendant three or four years later burned the bouse at the Nelson place. Ordinarily, \u201cevidence of threats alone is insufficient to prove the identity\u201d of the accused in arson or to justify a conviction. 6 C.J.S., Arson, Sec. 38, p. 764; S. v. Freeman, 131 N.C. 725, 42 S.E. 575; S. v. Rhodes, 111 N.C. 647, 15 S.E. 1038. See also Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Sec. 102.\nAs to the evidence tending to show (1) that oil was found in the well at the Nelson place, and (2) that burned chips and paper were found under the kitchen safe at the Carson place, it suffices to say there is no evidence tending in any way to connect the defendant with either of these events. However, treating this evidence as being before the court, as is required on the question of nonsuit (where the rule requires that evidence admitted erroneously over objection must be given full probative effect on the theory that if the inadmissible portions had not been received its proponent may have offered in lieu thereof admissible evidence of equal probative force\u2014Supply Co. v. Ice Cream Co., 232 N.C. 684, 61 S.E. 2d 895; Ballard v. Ballard, 230 N.C. 629, 55 S.E. 2d 316), even so, it is without probative force and adds nothing by way of corroboration to the State\u2019s case. Nevertheless, we think it appropriate to say that in the absence of proofs tending to connect the defendant with these purely anonymous events, the evidence in respect thereto was inadmissible. Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Sec. 354, p. 263; 22 C. J.S., Criminal Law, Secs. 686 to 690. Also, the evidence that oil was found in the well relates to an event that has no \u201ccommon features\u201d with the crime of arson. See Wigmore on Evidence, Third Edition, Sec. 304, p. 202.\nThe evidence of illicit relations between Mrs. Lawson and the defendant was relevant and admissible only on the theory of motive. Motive is not an element of the crime of arson. 6 C.J.S., Arson, Sec. 3, p. 722, and Sec. 38, p. 764. However, the rule is that evidence of motive may be received and considered along with and as corroborative of other evidence tending to show plan or scheme to burn. 6 C.J.S., Arson, Sec. 39, pp. 764 and 765. Therefore, in the absence of other evidence tending to connect the defendant, by fixed plan or otherwise, with an incendiary burning of the Lawson home, the evidence of illicit relations between the defendant and Mrs. Lawson is without probative value of substance as bearing on the charges of arson and murder.\nBesides, this record in its over-all implications tends to negative, rather than support, the theory that the illicit relations between these parties furnished a motive for the crimes here charged. The record reflects a marked degree of acquiescence on the part of the deceased. The defendant spent the week-end of the fire with the deceased and his wife, and the record points to complete harmony between them. The three slept together on a pallet at the tobacco barn part of the night before the fire. Tbe witness Claude Gordon said \u201cLawson and Needbam appeared to be friendly\u201d the day of the fire.\nThe evidence adduced below, if believed, involves the defendant in a sordid course of conduct and a series of infractions of the criminal laws of this State for which he may yet be tried, and for which, if convicted, the allowable punishment is substantial.\nBut a careful perusal of the record impels the conclusion that the evidence, when considered either as a series of events or as a composite bundle of circumstances, is insufficient in law to support the convictions for arson and murder. S. v. Madden, supra; S. v. Jones, supra; S. v. Miller, supra. It follows, then, that the judgment below will be vacated and reversed and the motions for nonsuit sustained.\nReversed.", "type": "majority", "author": "JOHNSON, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.", "Woltz & Barber and Folger & Folger for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. CLAUDE NEEDHAM.\n(Filed 21 May, 1952.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 52a (3)\u2014\nWliile circumstantial evidence is an accepted instrumentality in the ascertainment of truth, it must establish facts so connected and related as to point unerringly to defendant\u2019s guilt and exclude any other reasonable hypothesis in order to withstand defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit, and when the facts are consistent with innocence and raise a mere inference or conjecture or possibility of guilt, nonsuit should be entered.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 51\u2014\nWhile the weight and credibility of circumstantial evidence, as well as whether the facts in evidence are so connected or related as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, are all questions of fact for the jury, it is for the court to determine in the first instance whether the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the State is of sufiicient probative force to justify the jury in drawing the affirmative inference of guilt.\n3. Arson \u00a7 7: Homicide \u00a7 25 \u2014 Circumstantial evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of arson and murder held insufficient for jury.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant and the wife of deceased had carried on illicit relations over a period of years to the knowledge of the husband, but that the parties remained on good terms except at times when they were drinking, and that defendant and deceased seemed friendly on the day in question. The evidence further tended to show that the three of them, in company with three others, engaged in a drinking party at deceased\u2019s residence until at least all of them but defendant and deceased went to sleep, that one of them was later awakened by some noise and saw a man standing in the kitchen with a lighted stick or pine knot, cursing, whereupon the witness ran from the house, awoke one of his companions on the front porch and stated that another companion (not the defendant) was trying to burn up the house, and that defendant was seen driving his car on the highway away from the scene at a rapid rate on a circuitous route about the time of the fire. Deceased\u2019s body was found in the house after the fire. Held: Conceding that the evidence was sufficient to show the fire was of incendiary origin, it raises only a conjecture or suspicion as to defendant\u2019s identity as the incendiary, and defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit should have been allowed irpon the prosecutions for arson and murder, the facts in evidence being consistent with defendant\u2019s version of the occurrences and being- consistent with his innocence.\n4. Arson \u00a7 7\u2014\nThe State\u2019s evidence tending to show that defendant and deceased\u2019s wife had carried on illicit relations over a period of years, that defendant was displeased when deceased and his wife moved to a place some distance from defendant\u2019s residence, and stated that a good way to get them to move would be to burn the house, but that the statement was made some three or four years before the fire in question and that deceased and his wife had thereafter twice moved, is held of little probative force on the question of the identity of defendant as the incendiary of the house in which the parties last resided.\n5. Same\u2014\nEvidence that oil was found in the well and burned chips and paper found in the kitchen at the home of the deceased, without any evidence tending to connect defendant therewith, is without probative force on the question of defendant\u2019s identity as the incendiary.\n6. Same\u2014\nEvidence of illicit relations between defendant and deceased\u2019s wife is without probative force on the question of defendant\u2019s identity as the incendiary of the fire in which deceased was burned to death when the evidence further shows that though deceased knew of the relations between his wife and defendant, he and defendant nevertheless remained in harmonious and friendly relations, and there is no evidence of a plan or scheme on the part of defendant to burn the house.\nAppeal by defendant from Rudisill, J., and a jury, January Term, 1952, of Stokes.\nCriminal prosecutions tried upon two bills of indictment, consolidated for trial, charging the defendant with arson and murder in the first degree.\nThe theory of the alleged dual crimes is that the defendant (1) by willfully and feloniously burning a tenant house occupied by James O. Lawson thereby committed the crime of arson, and (2) that the further crime of murder in the first degree was consummated when Lawson was burned to death in the house. (G.S. 14-17 as amended.) The fire occurred Sunday afternoon, 26 August, 1951.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as to each charge, with recommendation of life imprisonment. Thereupon judgment was entered in each case directing that the defendant \u201cbe confined in the State\u2019s Prison at hard labor for the remainder of his natural life.\u201d\nThe defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Moody, and Charles G. Powell, Jr., Member of Staff, for the State.\nWoltz & Barber and Folger & Folger for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0555-01", "first_page_order": 605, "last_page_order": 618 }