Catawba-Caldwell County NcArchives Court.....Henry Beard & Jalie Miller, State V. 1899
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Connie Ardrey n/a December 12, 2011, 6:35 pm

Source: N C Reports
Written: 1899

State v. Henry Beard and Jalie Miller

(Decided April 18, 1899)

Judge's Charge - Evidence

1. While the object of the Judge's charge is to state the law, and to assist 
the jury in applying the facts, as found by them, to the law - the manner in 
which this is to be done must be left, to a very great extent, to the good 
sense and sound judgment of the trial Judge.

2. On the trial of an indictment charging fornication and adultery committed 
in Catawba County, evidence tending to show criminal intercourse between the 
defendants in Caldwell County is admissible, not that they could be convicted 
for that, but to properly interpret the evidence tending to prove the offence 
in Catawba County.

Indictment for fornication and adultery in Catawba County, tried before 
Cobble, J., at Fall Term, 1898, of Catawba Superior Court.

The evidence introduced by the State was entirely circumstantial. Some of the 
circumstances occurred in Catawba County and some in Caldwell County. The 
defendants offered no evidence.

His Honor recited the whole evidence and laid down general principles of law 
applicable to the trial of such cases. 

The defendants excepted for that his Honor failed to classify and array the 
testimony in its proper bearings.

The defendants asked the following special instruction:

The jury will not consider any evidence of the presence or conduct of the 
defendants in the County of Caldwell, or any thing said by the male defendant 
in that County, as being independent proof going to sustain the present 
indictment, but will only consider such evidence in so far as the jury may 
regard it as tending to prove adulterous intercourse between the defendants in 
the County.

Instruction declined, defendants excepted. Verdict, guilty. Judgment. Appeal 
by defendants.

Messrs. E. B. Cline and T. M. Hufham for appellants
Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney General, for the State

NC Supreme Court Justice Furches, J. - This is an indictment for fornication 
and adultery and both defendants were on trial; verdict of guilty and appeal.

Defendant's first exception is that the Court only read the notes of the 
evidence, and charged the law in general terms. We do not understand from this 
exception that there is any complaint upon the ground that the charge 
contained erroneous propositions of law. Nor do we understand that there is 
any complaint, alleging any error committed by the Court in reading the notes 
of the evidence; but that the Court did not sufficiently array and sum up the 
evidence in its charge to the jury; and the case of State v. Boyle, 104 NC, 
800 is the principle authority relied on for this contention. The case of 
State v. Boyle has been so often criticized, explained, and overruled upon the 
point for which it is cited that it can no longer be considered as authority. 
The Court in that case undertook to say how well a Judge should succeed in 
aiding the jury to understand the evidence, and seems to have succeeded better 
in producing confusion than in establishing the rule of practice intended to 
be established. We do not wish to fall into this error again. It is true that 
the object of the charge is to state the law of the case to the jury, and to 
aid them in applying the facts to the law; but the manner in which this is 
done must be left, to a very great extent, to the good sense and sound 
judgment of the Judge who tries the case.

There are a few general principles that should be observed by Court and 
counsel on the trial, whether civil or criminal. Prayers for instruction 
should be hypothetical, not too long and not confused. The charge should 
consist in hypothetical propositions, as far as practicable, should not be too 
discusive, as it is usually addressed to plain intelligent jurors, who can 
comprehend a short, concise statement better than a discussion of the matter. 
But we do not think that the facts or the evidence in this case were 
complicated, and they must have been fully understood by the jury. This 
exception is not well taken and can not be sustained.

The interesting question intended to be presented by defendant's 7th prayer 
and refusal of the Court to give the same, does not arise, as both defendants 
were on trial and both were convicted. And we do not propose to consider it 
until it is presented.

The 8th and 9th exceptions, based upon prayers asked and not given, are not 
sustained.

But it appears from the record that the State was allowed to introduce 
evidence tending to prove adulterous intercourse between the defendants in 
Caldwell County. This was competent evidence and could not be excluded on 
objection of defendants. But it was only competent to be considered in 
connection with other evidence to prove adultery between the parties in 
Catawba County, and not to prove the crime of fornication and adultery between 
the defendants in Caldwell County. It is competent evidence upon the same 
principle that evidence of facts more than two years before the finding of the 
bill, or facts that have taken place after the bill is found. The defendants 
could not be convicted for these acts; but it is competent to prove them, to 
aid the jury in coming to a correct conclusion, or in other words to properly 
interpret the evidence tending to prove the offence in Catawba County. The 
Court was asked to so instruct the jury and declined to do so. In this there 
was error. 

New trial.

Additional Comments:
In the NC Supreme Court February Term 1899

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/catawba/court/henrybea2137gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 6.0 Kb