State v. Ferguson, 289

Citation261 N.C. 558,135 S.E.2d 626
Decision Date08 April 1964
Docket NumberNo. 289,289
PartiesSTATE, v. Jack FERGUSON.
CourtUnited 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.

DENNY, Chief Justice.

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: 'The term 'inflicts serious injury' means physical or bodily injury resulting from an assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill. The injury must be serious but it must fall short of causing death. Further definition seems neither wise nor desirable. Whether such serious injury has been inflicted must be determined according to the particular facts of each case.'

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: '* * * Intent is said to be an act or motion (emotion) of the mind, but seldom, if ever, capable of direct or positive proof, but a person's intent is arrived at by such just and reasonable deductions from the acts and facts proven as the guarded judgment of a reasonably cautious and prudent person with (would) ordinary (ordinarily) regard (draw) therefrom. Intent is usually shown by the facts and circumstances known to the party charged with the intent, and it may be evidence (sic) by the acts and declarations of the party * * *.

'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
56 cases
  • State v. Strickland, 32PA82
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • January 11, 1983
    ...(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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • April 12, 1976
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • June 13, 1977
    ...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
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina
    • July 29, 1994
    ...... 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 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT