{
  "id": 8697465,
  "name": "STATE v. ISRAEL SAVAGE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Savage",
  "decision_date": "1878-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "520",
  "last_page": "522",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "78 N.C. 520"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 320,
    "char_count": 5854,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.424,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.14245357794991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.42836937597520164
    },
    "sha256": "7146bd9380680b91f2c8ede6015f3e55eff4a1b6bd54777e83aac01bd2971203",
    "simhash": "1:3f2d510177dbcda4",
    "word_count": 1030
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:04:18.240606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ISRAEL SAVAGE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Faircloth, J.\nThe prayer of the prisoner, that if the jury believed that his i\u2019eason was dethroned, and. that he did the killing before he had time to cool, and without malice .aforethought, was correct as a l<?gal proposition, but the difficulty is that there was no evidence to support it.\nNothing had occurred to dethrone his reason, and His Honor might have told the jury without any qualification, that ample cooling time had intervened. The fatal blow was given with a concealed and deadly weapon, not in de-fence of the life of the prisoner\u2019s kinswoman, nor to save her from great bodily harm, for she was not in danger in \u25a0\u00e9ithei\u2019 respect. The remarks of 'His Honor in the presence \u25a0of the venire, pending the selection of the jury, were not calculated to do the prisoner any harm, especially as he disavowed any purpose to punish them for the expression of any \u00abpinion they bright hav\u00e9 formed. The Subsequent action \u25a0of the jurors as they were called, negatives the assumption that they had been intimidated by the Court. There being no other exceptions and no error appearing from th\u00e9 record, th\u00e9 judgment must be affirmed.\nLet this be certified .in order that the Court below may proceed according to law.\n\u2022No error.\nPer Curiam. Judgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Faircloth, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General, for th\u00e9 State.",
      "No counsel for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ISRAEL SAVAGE.\nIndictment \u2014 Murder\u2014Evidence\u2014Cooling Time \u2014 Jury.\n1. On a trial for murder, it was in evidence that the prisoner, the deceased and others were at work in a field together, when a dispute occurred between the deceased and a kinswoman of prisoner ; that prisoner reproved deceased for troubling her when deceased remarked \u201cif you make me mad I would think no more of going to the house and getting Mr. J\u2019s gun and shooting you than nothing,\u2019 and prisoner replied \u201cif you want to get the gun, you had better go that then the prisoner went off and in about half an hour returned with a hatchet behind hini and asked deceased if he meant what he said ? the deceased said he did, and thereupon the prisoner struck him with the hatchet and killed him ; Held, that nothing had occurred to dethrone the prisoner\u2019s reason, and His Honor below might have told the jury without any qualification that ample cooling time had intervened.\n2. During the selection of the jury on a trial for murder, several jurors answered that \u201cthey had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty,\u201d whereupon His Honor said \u201cthat in olden times, Judges sometimes punished men for expressing opinions in such cases, but the Court did not propose to do that; and such expressions might have a tendency to prejudice the community from which jurors were to be selected, and thereby the prisoner might be seriously damaged. Hereafter it was to be hoped that ' there will be no such expression of opinion in order that fair trials may be had for all who are accused of crime Held, not to be error.\nINDICTMENT for Murder, tried at January Special Term, 1878, of Nobthampton Superior Court, before McKoy, J.\nThe prisoner was charged with the killing of Joseph Hill, The facts material to the points decided are as follows ; The prisoner, the deceased and others were gathering cotton in a certain field, and in consequence of a dispute between the deceased and a woman (who was a kinswoman of prisoner and engaged at work with them), he seized her in an angry manner, and the prisoner reproved him and remarked that ber husband was crippled and that he could not serve his. wife so. The deceased replied, \u201c if you make me mad, I would think no more of going to the house and getting Mr. J\u2019s gun and shooting you than nothing.\u201d The prisoner replied, \u201c if you want to get the gun, you had better go.\u201d\nHe(prisoner) then went to the house a short distance off and returned in about a half hour with a hatchet behind him, and upon approaching the deceased, asked him if he meant what he had said. The deceased said he did, and thereupon the prisoner struck him with the hatchet on the head and killed him.\nThe prisoner,\u2019s counsel asked the Court to charge the jury, \u201c that if they were satisfied the assault made by deceased upon prisoner\u2019s kinswoman, and the threat he made to shoot prisoner, dethroned the prisoner\u2019s reason, and he did the killing before he had-time to cool, and without malice, it1 was manslaughter and not murder.\u201d His Honor declined to give the instruction as prayed for, but in response thereto said that there could be no murder without malice aforethought, and if the blow had been given to save the woman\u2019s life, or to protect her 'from great bodily harm, he would be guilty of neither; and that the question of cooling time did not arise where there had been no conflict between prisoner and deceased, and where no assault had been committed upon the prisoner; nor where, as in this case, the deceased used a switch in his assault on the woman, and the-prisoner used a deadly weapon after he returned and found the woman in no danger, and that words only -would not mitigate the crime from murder to manslaughter. . The jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder.\nThe pri\u00e1oner\u2019s counsel moved for a new trial because the Court had said, \u2014 when only two jurors had been selected and upon Several other jurors answering that \u201cthey had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty,\u201d \u2014 \u201cthat in the olden times, Judges sometimes pun-ashed men for expressing opinions in such eases, but the Court did not propose to do that. And such expressions might have a tendency to prejudice the community from which'1 jurors were to be selected, and thereby the prisoner might be seriously damaged. Hereafter it was to be hoped that there will be no such expi\u2019ession of opinion in order that fair trials may be had for all who $,re accused of crime.\u201d The motion was denied. Judgment. Appeal by prisoner.\nAttorney General, for th\u00e9 State.\nNo counsel for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0520-01",
  "first_page_order": 536,
  "last_page_order": 538
}