Court Opinion

ID: 9856444
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:47:41.143634+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:47.789259
License: Public Domain

Bobbitt, J.,
dissenting. Whether a person, when indicted and tried for murder, may be found guilty as an accessory before the fact to the crime of murder, remains in doubt. S. v. Dewer, 65 N.C. 572, and S. v. Green, 119 N.C. 899, 26 S.E. 112, clearly say, “No.” Under rather unusual factual situations, the decisions in Dewer and Green were overruled or the authority thereof somewhat impaired in S. v. Bryson, 173 N.C. 803, 92 S.E. 698, and in S. v. Simons, 179 N.C. 700, 103 S.E. 5. If and when an appropriate factual situation is presented, I think this Court should reconsider and clarify this subject.
G.S. 14-5 defines an accessory before the fact as a person who counsels, procures or commands another person to commit a felony. Here, according to the State’s evidence, the defendant, in person, committed the robbery and murder. As I read the record, the defendant did not testify that he counseled, procured or commanded the robbery or murder; and the defendant’s testimony is all the testimony tending to show he was not present at the time and place of the commission of the robbery-murder. Hence, whatever view is taken as to the legal question discussed in the preceding paragraph, I do not think the evidence in this case warranted an instruction as to defendant’s guilt as an accessory before the fact.
PARKER, J., joins in this dissenting opinion.