Case ID: nc_125/html/0730-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      ClaRK^ J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

STATE v. CORNELIUS SHINES.
    (Decided December 23, 1899.)
    
      Indictment — Stable and Barn Burning — Gircumstantial Evidence.
    
    1. Where the circumstantial evidence connecting the prisoner with the crime composes a chain, each circumstance depends upon the truth of the preceding one, and the chain is no stronger than the weakest link.
    2. Ordinarily, the circumstances accumulate, each by itself being of no great force, but, becoming united, they may acquire great strength, like strands when twisted into a cable.
    3. While the trial Judge submits the evidence to the jury, he does so subject to his power to set aside the verdict against the prisoner, if, in his opinion, not sufficiently supported by the evidence.
    INDICTMENT against the prisoner for setting fire to the barn and stable of Dr. R. J. Williams, tried before Timber-lahe, J., at March Term, 1899, of Pendes Superior Court. Thé evidence was circumstantial, and at its close, the prisoner requested the Court to charge the jury that there were not sufficient facts for them to convict. His Honor declined so to charge, and prisoner excepted. There was a verdict of guilty. Motion for new trial, upon the ground that the evidence was insufficient to justify a verdict of guilty. Motion refused. Defendant excepted. Judgment of imprisonment in the State Prison at hard labor for the term of ten years. Appeal by defendant to Supreme Court.
    A compendium of the evidence is contained in the opinion.
    
      Messrs. L. V. Grady and H. L. Stevens, for appellant.
    
      Attorney-General, for State.
   ClaRK^ J.

Tbe prisoner was convicted of setting fire to a barn and stables. Tbe only exception is to tbe refusal of a prayer that there was no evidence to justify submitting tbe case to tbe jury. It was in evidence that at daylight next morning, after the burning,tracks were found around tbe bam and stables and leading off in tbe direction of tbe prisoner’s bouse, which, when followed up, came into tbe road about fifty yards from and opposite bis bouse; that going on to tbe prisoner’s bouse, bis shoes, which were a new pair, were taken and were found to exactly fit tbe aforesaid tracks around tbe bam and stable; also that a short time prior thereto the prisoner bad bad two difficulties with tbe owner of tbe barn and stables, about different matters, and became very angry; that be said to one witness shortly before tbe fire that be was “mad with Dr. Williams (tbe owner of tbe bam and stables), and that be would bum bis tail,” and be also said be “would go down to Dr. Williams’ and -do him up.” Other witnesses testified to tbe same or similar threats shortly before tbe fire; also, other witnesses testified to seeing the prisoner’s shoes tried in tbe tracks around tbe barn and stables, and that they fitted. Tbe prisoner, on cross-examination, said be saw tbe light of tbe fire at Dr. Williams’ that night, but did not go out of his house, nor give any alarm.

Upon this evidence tbe Judge properly submitted tbe case to tbe jury (State v. Green, 117 N. C., 695; State v. Kiger, 115 N. C., 746), subject to his power to set aside tbe verdict, if tbe Court did not deem tbe verdict was altogether sufficiently supported by tbe evidence, which power tbe Court saw fit not to exercise.

There was certainly evidence from which an inference of guilt might be properly drawn.

There are cases of circumstantial evidence in which each circumstance depends upon the truth of tbe preceding one, in which case the evidence may be likened to a chain which is no stronger than its weakest link, but usually that simile is inapplicable. Ordinarily, thé circumstances accumulate, each one by itself being of no great weight, but like the bundle of twigs in the fable, or the several strands twisted into a rope or cable, becoming, when united, of great strength. State v. Christmas, 101 N. C., 749; State v. Powell, 94 N. C., 965; State v. Mitchell, 89 N. C., 521; State v. Wilson, 76 N. C., 120; State v. Thompson, 97 N. C., 496. In State v. Rhodes, 113 N. C., 647, there was no evidence against the defendant except threats.

No error.

Eaibcloth, 0. J., dissents.