State v. McDowell

5 Citing cases

  1. State v. Stewart

    226 N.C. 299 (N.C. 1946)   Cited 1 times

    If the defendant intended to kill the deceased and did so for revenge, because he thought the deceased was withholding information as to the whereabouts of McQueen, even though the fixed design to kill was formed immediately before he fired the fatal shot, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. Or if the defendant armed himself with a pistol and determined to find McQueen, and determined to kill anyone whom he thought was withholding information as to McQueen's whereabouts, and actually did kill the deceased for that reason, he is guilty of murder in the first degree. No legal provocation in mitigation of the defendant's conduct is shown in this record. S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563, 59 S.E. 690. We are not prepared to hold, in the light of our decisions, that all the facts and attendant circumstances are insufficient to sustain the verdict of murder in the first degree.

  2. State v. Williams

    116 S.E. 570 (N.C. 1923)   Cited 7 times

    Exception 31: As to this exception, the court was undertaking to define how malice may be shown, and again the court followed the rules of this Court in defining malice. S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563; S. v. Cameron, 166 N.C. 379. Exception 32: This exception seems to be abandoned by the defendants in their brief, and properly so.

  3. State v. Kincaid

    183 N.C. 710 (N.C. 1922)   Cited 10 times

    Edwards v. Tel. Co., 147 N.C. 126; McAdoo v. R. R., 105 N.C. 140; Emry v. R. R., 102 N.C. 209; Meredith v. Coal Co., 99 N.C. 576. These objections are sufficient to exclude the entire prayer, even if a part of it was correct; for where a portion of an instruction is erroneous, the court need not give so much of it as is good. S. v. Neal, 120 N.C. 613; S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563. We have compared with the charge each of the remaining requests and find that the substance of every material principle stated in them — certainly every material principle to which the defendant was entitled — is contained in the instructions given. The court did not adopt the language of each request, and was not required to do so. It is an established rule of practice that a judge is not bound to give instructions in the identical words of a request, if the matter or principle embraced therein is correct and amply presented.

  4. State v. Hand

    170 N.C. 703 (N.C. 1915)   Cited 8 times

    The third prayer for instruction, while setting out a combination of acts and circumstances in testimony, attempted to withdraw from the jury the ultimate question of fact, whether the apprehension was a reasonable one, and to substitute an instruction that if those facts and circumstances were found to be true the jury should return a verdict of not guilty. If part of a prayer is erroneous, it is not error to reject the whole. S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563. It is well settled law that when the killing with a deadly weapon has been proven or admitted, the burden is on the prisoner to show excuse or mitigation. S. v. Gaddy, 166 N.C. 341; S. v. Yates, 155 N.C. 450; S. v. Rowe, ib., 436; S. v. Simonds, 154 N.C. 197; S. v. Brittain, 89 N.C. 481.

  5. State v. McKenzie

    81 S.E. 301 (N.C. 1914)   Cited 3 times

    There was evidence of premeditation and deliberation to be submitted to the jury. S. v. McDowell, 145 N.C. 563; S. v. Banks, 143 N.C. 652; S. v. Teachey, 138 N.C. 598. Exceptions 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 are to the cross-examination of Ed. Ingram, a witness for the prisoner, who was with him when he went to the woods and killed the deceased.