Case Name: STATE v. WILL CLONINGER, JOHN CLONINGER and C. W. COSTNER
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1908-12-22
Citations: 149 N.C. 567
Docket Number: 
Parties: STATE v. WILL CLONINGER, JOHN CLONINGER and C. W. COSTNER.
Judges: WalKER, J., concurs in dissenting opinion of Connor,
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 149
Pages: 567–580

Head Matter:
STATE v. WILL CLONINGER, JOHN CLONINGER and C. W. COSTNER.
(Filed 22 December, 1908).
1. Appeal and Error — Instructions—Stating Contentions.
An exception, that the trial Judge narrated facts not found in the evidence is untenable, when it appears that he was stating the contention of a party to the suit supported by the evidence.
2. Murder — Character Witness — Instructions—Weight of Evidence.
Upon a trial for a felony, the Judge charged the jury: “You should likewise consider the evidence As to the character of the , (defendant's) witnesses, whether that evidence was elicited from tlie witnesses themselves, on cross-examination, or otherwise, or whether it was told by witnesses who were called to testify as to the character of the other witnesses.” Held, no error, when, immediately following he instructed the jury, in effect, that such evidence only went to the weight and credibility of the testimony in each instance.
3. Same — Defendant a Witness.
AA7hen a defendant on trial for a felony goes upon the stand in ' his own behalf without offering evidence as to his own character, the credibility of- his testimony is in question, and the State may introduce evidence tending to show his bad character when it is confined to the purpose of contradiction, or of impeaching his evidence.
4. Murder — Defendant a Witness — Character -r- Substantive Evidence.
Evidence as -to the character of defendant on trial for murder is substantive, when he goes upon the witness stand and introduces evidence of his good character.
5. Character Witnesses — Defendant a Witness — Examination.
For the sole purpose of contradicting his testimony, it is competent for the State to cross-examine a defendant, a witness in his own belnilf, on trial for murder, when he has introduced no evidence as to his character; and the cross-examination is not restricted to matters brought out on the direct examination. Revisal, sec. 1634.
6. Murder — Insanity—Presumption—Burden of Proof.
The presumption is that a prisoner on trial for murder was ' sane at the time of the homicidal act, with the burden on him to prove the- contrary.
7. Same — Evidence—Instructions.
Under tlie “transitory homicidal plea,” the prisoner, on trial for murder, testified: “I guess I was unconscious . . .. I saw (deceased) coming towards me' . . . He said he was going to kill me, X thought Ijie was. I then struck him.” This blow was the homicidal act. The following instruction was held no error: “If the prisoner was in a state of mind at the time of the homicidal act to comprehend his relation to others, or, knowing the criminal act, was conscious that he was doing wrong, he was responsible; otherwise, he was not.” (State v. Branner, ante 559, cited and approved).
8. Murder — Manslaughter—Aider and Abettor — Evidence Sufficient.
When one of the prisoners was present at the time deceased was killed, and, with others, followed deceased, cursing him, and got a baseball bat away from him with which another person struck the fatal blow, there is abundant evidence to sustain his conviction of manslaughter as an aider and abettor.
ACTION tried before Moore, J., and a jury, February Term, 1908, of Gaston.
Will Oloninger, John Oloninger, Charles Costner and Tol-lie Oloninger were indicted for the murder of John Mauney. Tollie Oloninger was acquitted. 'The others were each convicted of manslaughter and sentenced respectively, in the order of their names as above, to throe, two and one year each on the public roads, and appealed.
There was evidence that John Mauney was struck in the head With a base-ball bat in the hands of Will Oloninger, one of the prisoners, on 8 August, 1901; that the blow caused his death, and that John Oloninger and Charles Costner aided and abetted in the killing.
There had been a ball game near Hardin,, and the game was over. When Mauney received the fatal blow he had backed off the ball ground into a pea field. John Cloninger, Will Oloninger and Charles Costner, the prisoners, followed him into a pea field. In pursuing him the following' transpired: John Mauney was backing and, waving his bat through the ball ground, telling the crowd (the prisoner's in the crowd) not to follow him. He backed twenty-five steps. Manney was angry and talking loud, and seemed to be drinking. John Cloninger was facing Manney and struck at him with, his mandolin, and Manney struck at John Cloninger with his fist once or'twice. The Cloninger boys and Costner were in front of Manney, Manney backing. Mauney started to fall, and Costner jerked the bat out of his hand! Mauney got down and John Cloninger and Will Cloninger were on him, and Will Mauney pulled them off. Mauney got up, backed into Make Poole’s arms, and John Cloninger grabbed him, and Will Cloninger hit him in the head with a bat and knocked him down, »and John kicked him in. the side. In backing, Mauney was saying: “Men, stand off of me.” Will Cloninger, John Cloninger and Charles Costner were in front of Mauney (all three related). He backed and they followed him. Costner wrung the bat out of his hand. Charles Hester hit Will Cloninger with a base-ball bat when they were backing Mauney. It .was a bat that he took from Clifton Knight. John Mauney backed; John Cloninger, went towards him with mandolin. Costner was told not to follow Mauney; he cursed and said: “Let him put down that bat.” Will and John Cloninger got hold of Mauney, and Costner took the bat away. They got Mauney down, and John Cloninger was pulled off of hint. Mauney backed, and John Cloninger followed him; they were knocking; Mauney stumbled and fell. Will Cloninger ran up and struck him in the head — the fatal blow. John Cloninger kicked him several times on the ground.
1. As to evidence against Will Cloninger: He struck the fatal blow with a base-ball bat when Mauney was unarmed and down, and being held by Make Pool.
2. As to evidence against John Cloninger: He was knocking Mauney in’ a willing fight, and aided Will Cloninger by holding Mauney, who was unarmed, while Will Cloninger knocked him down with a base-ball bat, and then he kicked Mauney when he was down.
3. As to the evidence against Charles- Costner: Costner followed Mauney with the Oloningers, he (Mauney) saying: “Men, stand off of me”; jerked and wrung the bat out of Mauney’s hand, and then Will Cloninger got the bat from Costner and knocked Mauney down with it. Costner cursed Mauney and said: “Let him put down that bat,” and took the bat from him, when John and Will Cloninger had hold of Mauney, and then let Will Cloninger have the bat to hit the fatal blow. The character of the defendants was shown to be that of desperate, lawless men.
(1) Will Cloninger was drinking the day of the homicide; had been indicted three times; twice for fighting with deadly weapons, and once for retailing.
(2) John Cloninger had bfeen indicted several times for fighting, and was then under indictment for retailing.
(3) Charles Costner had been indicted for fighting with a deadly weapon; indicted for retailing and distilling in Federal Court.
Reputation of Charles Costner year or so before homicide, “bad for selling liquor.”
Reputation Will Cloninger, “regular blind tiger.” All the boys were dealers in liquor except Tollie'.
Assistant Attorney-General Hayden Clement and Ileriot Clarhson for State.
Burwell & Gansiar and 8. J. Durham for defendants.

Opinion:
Cx.ARiv, C. J.
The prisoner's brief does not rely on the first three exceptions. The fourth exception is that his Honor narrated facts not found in the evidence, but an examination of the record shows that the Court was stating the contentions of the State, and there was evidence in their support.
Tbe prisoner's exceptions 5 and 6 are to tbe following instruction: "You should likewise consider tbe evidence as to the character of tbe witnesses, whether that evidence was elicited from the witnesses themselves on cross-examination or otherwise, or whether it was told by witnesses who were called to testify as to the character of the other witnesses." Read in connection with that part of the charge which directly follows it, there was no error: "Evidence-as to the character of a witness, who is not a defendant, is competent only for the purpose of enabling the jury to place the proper estimate upon the value of the testimony of the witness whose character is under consideration. . . . It is for the jury to say in such case whether the witness told the truth or not; but it is competent to introduce evidence as to the 'character of a witness in order that the jury may know the character of a witness whose testimony they are considering, and to be thereby aided in determining the weight which is to be given the testimony of such witness."
The seventh exception is to his Honor's charge, as follows: "Evidence as to the character of a witness who is likewise a defendant is competent for two purposes: (1) to enable the jury to place the proper estimate on the testimony 'of the defendant who is testifying as a witness; (2) as substantive evidence upon the question of guilt or innocence." This part of the charge, when applied to the facts in the case, is correct. Where a defendant goes on the witness stand and testifies, he does not thereby put his character in issue, but only puts his testimony in issue, and 'the State may introduce evidence tending to show the bad character of the witness solely for the purpose of contradicting him. This is the rule laid down in State v. Traylor, 121 N. C., 674, and State v. Foster, 130 N. C., 676. But when a defendant introduces evidence himself to prove his good character, then that evidence is substantive evidence, and may be considered by the jury as such.
The' defendants, Will Oloninger and Charles Costner, put their characters in issue by examining witnesses to prove their good character. John Cloninger did not do this, nor ever did the State put on evidence to show his bad character, nor for the purpose of contradicting his testimony. The State merely cross-examined him, as it had a right to do, under Ecvisal 1634. The accused, by becoming a witness in his own behalf, is liable to cross-examination to impair his credit, like any other witness, and the cross-examination is not restricted to matters brought out on the direct examination. The eighth exception is a repetition of the fifth and sixth.
Exceptions 9, 10, 11 and 12 present the "transitory homicidal plea" as to Will Cloninger. The presumption is that he was sane. The burden was on him to show the contrary. State v. Potts, 100 N. C., 465. Will Cloningpr testified: "I guess I was unconscious. . I saw ilauney coming towards me, he said he was going to kill me, and I thought he was. I then struck him." His Honor charged: "If the jDerson at the time of the homicidal act was in a state of mind to comprehend his relation to others, or, knowing the criminal character of the act, was conscious that he Avas doing Avrong, he Avas responsible; otherwise he Avas not, and such Avonld be your verdict." This charge íoIIoavs State v. Haywood, 61 N. C., 376, Avliich has been approved since on this point. State v. Potts, 100 N. C., 465; State v. Davis, 109 N. C., 784; State v. Branner, ante, 559, and in other eases.
Exceptions 13, 15 and 16. John Cloninger and Charles Costner Avere aiders and abettors. There is abundant evidence to sustain a Sonviction AAdiere the bystander is a friend of the perpetrator, and knoAvs that his presence Avill be regarded by the perpetrator as an encouragement and protection. Presence alone may be regarded as encouraging. State v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 725. To like effect is State v. Finley and Jimmerson, 118 N. C., 1161 to 1176, Avhere the Court sustained a conviction of nmrder in the second degree against the tAAm de fendants when it appeared that they were "deviling" the deceased and teasing ¡ him, and that-one of .them struck him and killed him. The Court in that case .held that the other was just as guilty, inasmuch as "deviling" and "teasing" was an unlawful act.
Here the prisoners are more guilty, for they were making an assault on the deceased, driving him backwards into a pea field. lie repeatedly warned them to stand back and they, with oaths, kept pressing on him. Charles Costner not only lent his presence, but was the man that was endeavoring to take the bat away from him, cursing and telling deceased to give up the bat, and finally jerking the bat out of deceased's hands. As soon as he jerked the bat out of deceased's hands, Will Cloninger took the bat and hit him. ,
Exceptions 14 and 11 have been considered in.the other exceptions. Exception 18 is abandoned, not being in the brief.
This was an important trial. It was a trial of a crowd of disorderly rioters at a baseball game. The painstaking Judge, as appears from the charge, very jealously guarded the rights of the prisoners, giving them many instructions which they asked and some to which they were not entitled. They have had every benefit and advantage of a fair trial.
Indeed, the prisoners have cause to congratulate themselves that they were not tried before a sterner Judge, for Charles Costner, the man who disarmed deceased at the time he was in need of a weapon, only received a sentence of one year's imprisonment; John Cloninger, 'the man who provoked the difficulty by hitting at deceased with a mandolin, tho man who held deceased while his brother struck the fatal blow, and who kicked the deceased after he had been stricken, only received two years' imprisonment; Will Cloninger, the prisoner, who entered the difficulty voluntarily and thereupon became the principal actor, and who finally struck the fatal blow by leaning oyer bis brother's shoulder, hitting deceased, an unarmed man, who was then in the grip of two other men, in the head with a baseball bat, thereby producing death, only received three years' imprisonment.
No error.