State v. Flemming

Claee, J.

This is an indictment against three negroes for cape upon a white woman, a widow, who, with her little daughter, was living in a house without male protectors. The assailants broke open the door and committed the crime with svery conceivable circumstance of violence and -brutality. The revolting details are narrated with a simplicity and an evident truthfulness thaR make the blood run cold. The only question was as to the identity of the prisoners. The jury, *689 after bearing tbe evidence and tbe defense of able counsel, said for tbeir verdict tbat tbey bad a reasonable doubt as- to the identity of one1 of tbe prisoners, and acquitted him, but that tbey bad none as to tbe other two1.

There was exception to evidence -of previous- statements made by the prosecutrix in corroboration of her evidence on tbe stand, also to- evidence which tbe Judge, after admitting over tbe prisoners’ objection, subsequently withdrew and told the jury not to- consider. Both these points have been so often passed upon by the Court tbat no citation of authority is- necessary.

State v. Apple, 121 N. C., 584 ;

State v. Coats, at this term;

State v. Collins, 93 N. C., 564 , and cases there cited.

Tbe confessions in jail were competent, tbe testimony being that there were neither threats nor inducements.

State v. Bishop, 98 N. C., 773 .

The special prayers for instructions by the prisoners (which were principally as to the defense of an alibi)

were given, except the prayer that t-he-re was not sufficient evidence to go to- the jury, which was properly refused, and the prayer tbat when circumstantial evidence is relied on “every link in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.” In lieu of this last, the Court instructed the jury; “In this case, the State relies upon both direct and circumstantial evidence^ and before the State can rely upon circumstantial evidence it is necessary for the State tó establish every circumstantial fact upon which it relies, beyond a reasonable doubt.” In this the Court followed exactly the rule-laid down in State v. Crane, 110 N. C., 536 , which has since been more fully stated in State v. Shines, 125 N. C., 730 .

Here the prosecutrix testified as to the identity of the two-who were convicted. There- was circumstantial evidence to corroborate her — such as scratches on the face of one of them the next day after the crime, which were not there the *690 ■day before, tbe identification of bis bat and glove, and other corroborating circumstances.

After a full examination of tbe record we find no error of law committed by tbe Judge, and tbe facts were submitted to the jury with proper and just instructions.

No Error.