State v. Utley

State v. Agnes Utley.

State v. Utley, 35 S.E. 428 (N.C. 1900)

Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided: March 20, 1900
Judges: Faircloth
Citations: 35 S.E. 428126 N.C. 9971900 N.C. LEXIS 349

Headnotes

Indictment, Attempt to Poison — Non-essential Averment— Guilty Knoidedge — Weight of Evidence — Motion in Arrest. 1. A motion in arrest of judgment will not he allowed, because the bill did not charge that the defendant had knowledge of the deadly character of the substance alleged to be poisonous. 2. The weight of the evidence and credibility of the witnesses aré for the jury to consider, and not the Court.

Summary

INDICTMENT for attempting to poison the prosecutor by placing phosphorus and a deadly poison, the name of which is to the jurors unknown, in a coffee pot with coffee therein, made for the prosecutor to drink, feloniously and maliciously intending him to injure, kill and murder, tried before Hohe, J., at January Term, 1900, of Wake Superior Court. After conviction, the prisoner moved in arrest of judgment, because the indictment did not charge that she had knowledge of the deadly character of the substance alleged to be poisonous. Motion disallowed, defendant excepted. • At the conclusion of the evidence, the defendant asked his Honor to instruct the jury to render a verdict of not guilty, on the ground that evidence was insufficient to sustain the charge in the bill of indictment. The prayer was disallowed, defendant excepted. Judgment of imprisonment. Defendant appealed.

Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.

Opinion of the Court — Faircloth

Faircloth, C. J.

The defendant is indicted for attempting to poison another by placing phosphorus and a poisonous substance in a coffee pot. After the conviction the defendant moved for an arrest of judgment, because the bill did not charge that the defendant had knowledge of the deadly character* of the substance alleged to b-ei poisonous. This averment was held not to be essential in State v. Slagle, 88 N. C., 630 .

The defendant also asked his Honor to instruct the jury .to render a verdict of not guilty on the ground that there was not sufficient evidence to submit to the jury, which prayer was overruled. We have carefully read the evidence, and think that there was evidence to go to the jury. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses were for the jury to consider, and not the Court.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 20 cases

View all citing references →

State Highest Courts20

Relies on it most ⓘ

State v. Lawrence146 S.E. 395 (N.C. 1929)
State v. Smoak195 S.E. 72 (N.C. 1938)
State v. Shipman163 S.E. 657 (N.C. 1932)
State v. Atlantic Ice & Coal Co.188 S.E. 412 (N.C. 1936)
State v. Hovis64 S.E.2d 564 (N.C. 1951)
State v. Clyburn159 S.E.2d 868 (N.C. 1968)

Most recent

State v. Clyburn159 S.E.2d 868 (N.C. 1968)
State v. Gay110 S.E.2d 458 (N.C. 1959)
State v. Peacock72 S.E.2d 612 (N.C. 1952)
State v. Hovis64 S.E.2d 564 (N.C. 1951)
State v. Brown11 S.E.2d 321 (N.C. 1940)
State v. Hammonds3 S.E.2d 439 (N.C. 1939)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

`/`	Focus the search box
`j` `k`	Next / previous result
`Enter`	Open the selected result
`x`	Add / remove the selected result from the download list
`n` `p`	Next / previous search term in a case
`c`	Copy the citation of the current case
`+` `−`	Larger / smaller reading text
`?`	Show this list