It is axiomatic with us that when a complete defense is made out by the State’s evidence, a defendant should be allowed to avail himself of such defense on a demurrer to the evidence under G-.S. 15-173. This is true even when the exculpating evidence is in the form of statements of defendant offered in evidence by the State. S. v. Watts, 224 N.C. 771, 32 S.E. 2d 348; S. v. Todd, 222 N.C. 346, 23 S.E. 2d 47; S. v. Robinson, 229 N.C. 647, 50 S.E. 2d 740.
The State, by offering evidence of the declarations or admissions of a defendant, is not precluded from showing that the facts are other than as related by him. S. v. Robinson, supra. And when the substantive evidence offered by the State is conflicting — -some tending to inculpate and some tending to exculpate the defendant — it is sufficient -to repel a demurrer thereto. S. v. Edwards, 211 N.C. 555, 191 S.E. 1; S. v. Todd, supra; S. v. Robinson, supra.
When, however, the State’s case must rest entirely on declarations made by defendant, and there is no evidence contra which does more than suggest a possibility of guilt or raise a conjecture, demurrer thereto should be sustained. S. v. Robinson, supra, and cases cited. In such ease, the declarations of the defendant are presented by the State as worthy of belief, S. v. Watts, supra, and when they are wholly exculpatory, the defendant is entitled to his acquittal. S. v. Cohoon, 206 N.C. 388, 174 S.E. 91; S. v. Robinson, supra.
When the evidence relied on by the State is analyzed and appraised in the light of these principles of law, it becomes apparent, in our opinion, that the defendant’s demurrer to the evidence should have been sustained.
There was evidence of some minor incriminating circumstances, and the testimony tends to show that the defendant made false and contradictory statements shortly after the homicide. In the main, however, the foregoing statements of facts represents a summary of all the testimony the State was able to produce aside from the evidence of statements the defendant made to the officers. While it may point the finger of suspicion at the defendant, it must be conceded that it is wholly insufficient to support the verdict of the jury.
The State must rest its case upon the statements made by the defendant about which the officers testified. Eliminate those statements and there is *448no case. If bis statements and admissions will not support a verdict against bim, but, instead, tend to exculpate bim, then tbe exception to tbe denial of bis demurrer to tbe evidence was well advised. S. v. Watts, supra; S. v. Todd, supra; S. v. Robinson, supra.
So then, tbe decisive question is this : Does tbe evidence of statements made by defendant, which tbe State presented as worthy of belief, make out a complete defense and entitle bim to acquittal? We are inclined to tbe view that it does.
After wandering around with deceased and Grubb from beer stand to beer stand, looking for women, during tbe early hours of tbe night, defendant took deceased to ride in an attempt to sober bim and persuade bim to go home. After reaching Phillips Avenue, thinking that deceased bad agreed to go home, tbe defendant drove off on a dirt road to avoid turning around on tbe highway. He went about 67 steps and backed into a narrow intersecting road. His rear wheels ran into boles in tbe side road, and be stopped. Deceased, for personal reasons, got out. Deceased bad a bottle of liquor. Defendant declined a drink and said that deceased could not have liquor on bis (defendant’s) automobile. Deceased then went around tbe automobile to defendant’s side, opened tbe door, and said be was going to cut defendant’s throat. Defendant jumped out and struck deceased in tbe face with bis fists four or five times. He knocked deceased down. When deceased got up, tbe defendant ran to bis automobile and drove off, leaving deceased standing in tbe woods.
Thereafter, someone assaulted deceased with some blunt instrument which has never been found, and dragged bim some distance to tbe culvert at tbe foot of the avenue fill. Who committed this crime tbe record fails to disclose. It may have been tbe defendant. As to this we may only surmise. Tbe fact remains that tbe evidence offered by tbe State leaves tbe deceased standing in tbe woods as defendant departed on bis automobile to return to bis home in Greensboro. Thus tbe State’s evidence tabes tbe defendant from tbe scene of tbe homicide before it occurred.
There is no testimony independent of these declarations which tends to place defendant at tbe scene of tbe homicide at or about tbe time it was committed, and this testimony offered by tbe State exculpates bim. Hence tbe Watts, Todd, and Robinson cases above cited are controlling.
Furthermore, tbe evidence of tbe coroner, offered by tbe State, negatives any suggestion that tbe deceased was fatally injured by the blows defendant admittedly struck with bis fists. There was a fracture at tbe base of tbe brain which extended through tbe bone. Tbe left side of bis face was bruised and blue. After bis scalp was retracted, tbe coroner discovered eight distinct bloody contusions on tbe surface of tbe skull. They appeared to have been made by a blunt instrument. There bad been *449a very extensive brain hemorrhage extending over the frontal and both temporal lobes of the brain which caused his death.
It follows that the order of the court overruling defendant’s demurrer to the evidence must be