In view of tbe grave consequences to tbe defendant, of tbe judgment in this case, we have stated tbe evidence in full, substan-. tially as tbe same appears in tbe statement of tbe case on appeal. If tbe facts are as defendant himself testifies, be is guilty of murder in tbe second degree, at least. His testimony as to tbe essential facts is fully and abundantly corroborated by tbe testimony of other witnesses. He admits tbe intentional killing by bim of Frank Green, tbe deceased, with a shotgun, and there is no evidence of justification or excuse. His counsel concede that upon all tbe evidence be is guilty of murder in tbe second degree, and contend only that by reason of weak mental capacity and intoxication, as tbe result of having drunk whiskey during tbe night of tbe homicide, be was unable to “deliberate and premeditate” to such a degree as is essential to guilt of murder in tbe first degree, as found by tbe jury. They do not contend that there is evidence tending to show that defendant was not responsible for bis act and, therefore, not capable of committing crime for either reason.
There were no exceptions to evidence submitted to tbe jury and no exceptions to evidence offered and excluded by tbe court. Tbe charge of tbe court appears in full in tbe statement of tbe case on appeal.
*620His Honor instructed tbe jury fully and correctly upon tbe law applicable to tbe facts wbicb tbe jury might find from tbe evidence. He defined tbe terms “premeditation” and “deliberation,” and instructed tbe jury tliat tbe burden of proving botb beyond a reasonable doubt was upon tbe State. He stated tbe contentions of botb tbe defendant and tbe State upon tbis phase of tbe case, fully and without objection from tbe learned counsel for defendant. He instructed tbe jury as follows:
“Now, in order for a person to be guilty of murder in tbe first degree, there must be an intent to kill; there must have been sufficient mental capacity to form that intent in tbe mind, and in order for a person to be guilty of any crime there must have been sufficient mental capacity to know right from wrong.
“Drunkenness under tbe law is no excuse for crime and does not relieve tbe person of guilt for crime entirely. But in tbe case of murder, if a person is so intoxicated and rendered so insensible and so irrational by intoxication of any kind, or is naturally so weak-minded from natural causes that be cannot form an intent and cannot premeditate and deliberate, then it reduces tbe offense from murder in tbe first degree to murder in tbe second degree.”
Defendant’s counsel except to these instructions and assign same as error. Tbe assignment cannot be sustained. Tbe instructions are supported by opinions of this Court in S. v. Allen, 186 N. C., 302; S. v. Foster, 172 N. C., 960; S. v. English, 164 N. C., 497. His Honor did not instruct tbe jury that an intent to kill was tbe only element in tbe crime of murder in tbe first degree. In view of tbe full and correct charge as to premeditation and deliberation, tbe jury could not, as intelligent men, have been misled to tbe prejudice of defendant.
Tbe assignment of error based upon tbe exception to tbe definition of reasonable doubt given by bis Honor in bis charge cannot be sustained. His Honor told tbe jury that “by tbe term reasonable doubt is meant a doubt wbicb has a valid and satisfactory reason for it; one arising out of tbe evidence in tbe case — just what tbe terms imply.” Tbe term “reasonable doubt” is not easily defined. It imports an uncertainty of mind, after a consideration of all tbe evidence, tending to establish tbe existence of tbe fact alleged by him upon whom tbe law places tbe burden; tbis uncertainty of mind must be tbe result of a full, fair, and reasonable consideration of all tbe evidence. Black’s Law Dictionary.
Tbe fourth and fifth exceptions are to tbe failure of bis Honor to give instructions requested in apt time and in writing. Botb these instructions were given in tbe charge, tbe principles of law embodied *621in tbem being clearly stated and fully explained by Ms Honor. Tbe remaining exceptions are formal.
Tbe issue in tbis case involved tbe life and death of defendant. Tbe record shows that tbe trial was conducted by tbe presiding judge with full appreciation of tbe grave responsibilities imposed upon him and in strict compliance with tbe law. Defendant has forfeited bis life and must now suffer death; tbis is in accordance with tbe law of tbe State, for defendant has wilfully, unlawfully, and feloniously, with malice aforethought, killed and murdered Frank Green, against tbe peace and dignity of the State; tbe murder was a deliberate and premeditated killing; tbe punishment prescribed by law is death.
On appeal to tbis Court, where only matters of law or legal inference can be considered, we find
No error.