State v. Ferguson, 289
Citation | 261 N.C. 558,135 S.E.2d 626 |
Decision Date | 08 April 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 289,289 |
Parties | STATE, v. Jack FERGUSON. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, Asst. Atty. Gen. Richard T. Sanders, for the State.
A. E. Leake, Marshall, for defendant.
The defendant assigns as error the failure of the court below to sustain his motion for judgment as of nonsuit made at the close of all the evidence as to the felony count in the bill of indictment.
The defendant does not contend that the evidence is insufficient to support a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon. However, he does contend that the evidence is insufficient to warrant its submission to the jury on the felony count in the bill of indictment.
The indictment was drawn under G.S. § 14-32, which reads as follows: 'Any person who assaults another with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, and inflicts serious injury not resulting in death, shall be guilty of a felony * * *.'
In the case of State v. Jones, 258 N.C. 89, 128 S.E.2d 1, this Court, speaking through Higgins, J., said:
In our opinion, a 'whiplash' injury may or may not be a serious injury, depending upon its severity and the painful effect it may have on the injured victim. Therefore, we have concluded that the evidence bearing on the question of serious injury is sufficient to take the case to the jury, but the jury must determine whether or not the injury was serious in light of the particular facts disclosed by the evidence. State v. Jones, supra. This assignment of error is overruled.
The appellant further assigns as error certain portions of the charge bearing on intent, as follows:
'Every man in law, is presumed to intend any consequence, which naturally flows from an unlawful act and so an intent to kill is the intent which exists in the mind of a person at the time he commits the assault or criminal act, intentionally and without justification or excuse to kill his victim or to inflict great bodily harm upon him.'
That portion of the foregoing charge contained in the first sentence of the first paragraph, set out above, except for the apparent errors of the court reporter, is identical with the challenged portion of the charge approved by this Court in State v. Watson, 222 N.C. 672, 24 S.E.2d 540.
The second paragraph of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Strickland, 32PA82
...(1978); State v. Perry, 276 N.C. 339, 172 S.E.2d 541 (1970); State v. Walters, 275 N.C. 615, 170 S.E.2d 484 (1969); State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E.2d 626 (1964). There is nothing about murder cases involving premeditation and deliberation that justifies a special rule of law gover......
-
Stuebgen v. State, 4325
...facilitate convictions by substituting presumptions for proof is not without limit. Tot v. United States, * * *.' State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E.2d 626, 628 (1964) states: 'A person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his act where specific intent is not an element o......
-
State v. Roberts
...has been inflicted must be determined according to the particular facts of each case." This statement was approved in State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 135 S.E.2d 626 (1964). In State v. Jones, supra, the Court held that where the prosecuting witness was shot in the back with a .410 shotgun ......
-
State v. Alexander
...... Page 87 . facts from which the fact sought to be proven may be reasonably inferred.' " State v. Ferguson, 261 N.C. 558, 561, 135 S.E.2d 626, 629 (1964) (quoting State v. Cauley, 244 N.C. 701, 708, 94 S.E.2d 915, 921 (1956)). "[T]he nature of the ......