State v. Vaughan, 186 N.C. 759 (1923)

Dec. 20, 1923 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

186 N.C. 759

STATE v. CARY VAUGHAN.

(Filed 20 December, 1923.)

Murder — Evidence—Criminal Daw — Appeal and Error.

Upon the trial of a father for the murder of his son: Held, the admission of testimony of a witness in explanation of an impeaching question asked by the defendant, and the statements of the defendant that he would “whip that boy,” notwithstanding his weakened condition, tending to show animus or ill feeling, was not erroneous under the circumstances' of the case.

Appeal by defendant from Daniels, J., at April Term, 1923, of HERTFORD. v

Criminal. action. Tbe defendant was convicted of murder in tbe second degree and be appealed.

Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.

No counsel contra.

Adams, J.

Tbe defendant was prosecuted for tbe murder of bis son, who was about sixteen years of age. On behalf of tbe State there was evidence tending to show tbe defendant’s threat to “whip” and “fix” tbe deceased and bis indifference as to consequences — “I don’t care bow soon somebody kills him”; that be did inflict severe corporal punishment; that on tbe last Sunday in February a physician was called in from whom tbe defendant concealed tbe boy’s real physical condition; and that tbe -death and burial occurred during tbe latter part of tbe week and tbe disinterment and autopsy on tbe following Sunday. Tbe post-mortem examination showed that tbe body was covered with wounds; tbe left arm was dislocated at tbe elbow and tbe right arm at tbe shoulder joint; on tbe breast was a cut six or eight inches in length, and at tbe base of tbe brain a contused wound which caused tbe death. Tbe defendant offered evidence, and upon issue joined, tbe jury found him guilty of murder in tbe second degree.

There are two exceptions to evidence, neither of which can be sustained. The testimony of John Vaughan, to which objection was taken, was in explanation of an impeaching question propounded by the defendant, and the defendant’s statement to Sanford Sutton that he would “whip that boy” notwithstanding his weakened condition, was competent as tending to show animus or ill-feeling.

The substance of the defendant’s prayers was given to the jury, and the instructions excepted to are free from error. His Honor was careful to safeguard the rights of the defendant throughout the trial. Indeed, a minute review of the case would result only in the repetition of familiar principles in the law of homicide. The admission of evidence and the charge of the court are sustained by the following authorities: S. v. Whitfield, 92 N. C., 831; S. v. Jones, 95 N. C., 588; S. v. Dickerson, 98 N. C., 708; S. v. Horn, 116 N. C., 1037; S. v. Wilcox, 118 N. C., 1131; S. v. Thornton, 136 N. C., 610; S. v. White, 138 N. C., 705; S. v. Roberson, 150 N. C., 837; S. v. Fowler, 151 N. C., 732; S. v. Baldwin, 152 N. C., 822; S. v. Kincaid, 183 N. C., 709; S. v. Johnson, 184 N. C., 637. We find

No error.