Indictment — Murder — Evidence — Cooling Time — Jury.
1. 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: "If you make me mad, I would think no more of going to the house and getting Mr. J.'s gun and shooting you than nothing," and prisoner replied: "If 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 him 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's reason, and his Honor below might have told the jury without any qualification that ample cooling time had intervened.
2. During the selection of a jury on a trial for murder, several jurors answered that "they had formed and expressed the opinion that the prisoner was guilty," whereupon his Honor said "that 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.
FAIRCLOTH, J.
The prayer of the prisoner, that if the jury believe that his reason was dethroned, and that he did the killing before he had time to cool, and without malice aforethought, was correct as a legal proposition; but the difficulty is there was no evidence to support it.
Nothing 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 defense of the life of the prisoner's kinswoman, nor to save her from great bodily harm, for she was not in danger in either respect. The remarks of his Honor in the presence of 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 opinion they might have formed. The subsequent action of 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 the record, the judgment must be affirmed.
PER CURIAM. No error.
Cited: S. v. Debnam, 98 N.C. 719.
(523)