State v. . Triplett

Stacy, C. J. It may simplify the objections to observe in limine that when three persons are jointly charged with a premeditated murder, as here, acts done in furtherance of a common purpose, design, or unlawful conspiracy, leading up to the murder, may be shown in evidence, though the bill contains only a general allegation of premeditation and deliberation, and makes no specific reference to the conspiracy. S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323; S. v. Donnell, 202 N. C., 782, 164 S. E., 352; S. v. Mace, 118 N. C., 1244, 24 S. E., 798; St. Clair v. U. S., 145 U. S., 134; Sprinkle v. U. S., 141 Fed., 811. Another principle, also applicable, is that where two or more persons aid and abet each other in the commission of a crime, all being present, all are principals and equally guilty. S. v. Gosnell, supra; S. v. Donnell, supra; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604; S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582, 120 S. E., 345; S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722, 53 S. E., 127. Yiewed in the light of these principles, the exceptions touching the matter of a conspiracy, though presented with much apparent diligence and research, are really too attenuate to require an extended discussion. Without elaboration, it is enough to say that they cannot be sustained. The objection chiefly urged by the defendants is the one addressed to the refusal of the court to strike out the dying declaration of the deceased. It may be conceded that whether a proper foundation or predicate was laid for the admission of this testimony is fairly debatable. S. v. Beal, supra. However, it is thought that the ruling in favor of its admission must be upheld. The declaration was prefaced with the statement that “he was killed,” which was equivalent to saying that the' deceased appreciated the seriousness of his condition and apprehended his approaching dissolution. S. v. Franklin, 192 N. C., 723, 135 S. E., 859. The testimony of Gwyn Triplett, at which the defendants complain, was admitted only as against Walter Triplett. It was clearly competent as to him. Indeed, it might well be considered as a part of the res gestee. S. v. Davis, 87 N. C., 514. At least, the deceased feared Walter’s presence was but a continuation of the original altercation. S. v. Bailey, 205 N. C., 255, 171 S. E., 81; S. v. Bryson, 203 N. C., 728, 166 S. E., 897. A careful perusal of the entire record leaves us with the impression that no reversible error has been shown. The verdict and judgments will be upheld. No error.