Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

107 N.C. 873

12 S.E 248

State v. . Jacobs

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided September 5, 1890

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1890-09-05

Indictment for Murder, tried before Brown, J., at May Term, 1890, of RobesoN Superior Court. The appellant prisoner and three others were indicted together for the murder of Candis Arps. Upon their arraignment, they severally pleaded “not guilty.” . On the trial, a witness for the State, Alexander Oxendine, testified that he was present when the prisoner shot the deceased. He stated that others also fired guns at her.

Decided 1890-09-05

Merbimon, C. J.

¶1 after stating the fagts: There is no merit in any of the prisoner’s exceptions. The motion in arrest of judgment is wholly without force. That4 two of the persons indicted with the prisoner for the murder charged in the indictment had been tried and convicted could not relieve or excuse him from answering for the crime charged against him. lie and they were alike guilty, and it can make no difference that two of them were tried at one time and the prisoner at another.

¶2 As to the first exception to evidence, it appears, from the nature of the evidence of the witness Atlas Oxendine and *876 the character of his cross-examination, that the purpose of the prisoner was to impeach his testimony. It was competent, therefore, to corroborate him by proving that he had, before the trial, stated to the witness McIntyre, in substance, part of the material facts stated by him on the trial. This is settled. State v. Whitfield, 92 N. C., 881; State v. Rowe, 98 N. C., 629; State v. Brewer, 98 N. C., 607; State v. Morton, decided at this term.

¶3 The evidence of the witness Alexander Oxendine was relevant and competent. The Court had no authority to tell the jury that they should not believe it. It was their province to believe or disbelieve it. That the witness himself could not tell where the deceased lived, nor the time when she was shot, did not destroy his testimony. That he did not might or might not go to his discredit, this depending upon attending facts, as to his opportunities, length of time, &c.

¶4 We have carefully examined the record, and find it in all respects sufficient to warrant the judgment. There is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.

¶5 Affirmed.

/107/nc/873 · .json · Public domain