Court Opinion

ID: 9811872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:31:06.824789+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:22:03.218885
License: Public Domain

BeowN, J.,
dissenting: Since I have been a member of this Court I have never voted for a new trial in a criminal case unless I saw that some substantial and harmful error had been committed on the trial. I think that is the case here.
The court permitted- the State to introduce evidence tendijig to prove that some time prior to defendant Grainger meeting with Nobles, the deceased, said defendant shot at Struthers’ house; that he came back up Hammond Street and met up with some negroes, and hit one of them; that he threatened to shoot one Hinson; that he shot at some colored children; that he made an assault on Henry Johnson with his gun and struck him with knueks, and that he was attempting to sell whiskey.
All this evidence it appears to me to be utterly incompetent and well calculated to seriously prejudice the defendants before the jury.
*634The plea of the defendant Grainger is self-defense, and his main reliance was his own testimony, and bringing all these extraneous and incompetent matters into the case undoubtedly greatly injured him. S. v. Jones, 93 N. C., 611; S. v. Barfield, 29 N. C., 299-308; 21 Cyc., p. 896; S. v. Whitaker, 79 Ga., 87.
The prisoners asked the following instruction, which was refused, and they excepted: “The court instructs the jury that the prisoners are not on trial for selling whiskey, nor for making an assault upon Henry Johnson with a pair of brass knucks, and, as independent facts, should not be considered by the jury in arriving at a verdict in this case.”
The Attorney-General, with his usual candor^ says in his brief that in his opinion the court should have given that prayer, and admits that the evidence referred to in the instruction was not competent.
It is urged, however, that, inasmuch as the jury rejected the defendant’s plea of self-defense, the error was harmless, as defendant would be guilty of murder in second degree, the crime for which they stand convicted. It may be that the admission of all that incompetent evidence so prejudiced their minds that the jury rejected his plea and evidence entirely.
This was a proper and pertinent instruction, and had it been given it would have neutralized the effect of the incompetent evidence.