State v. Bryson

CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTACY
CitationState v. Bryson, 200 N.C. 50, 156 S.E. 143 (N.C. 1930)
Decision Date19 December 1930
Docket NumberNo. 631.,631.
PartiesSTATE. v. BRYSON.

Appeal from Superior Court, Jackson County; Finley, Judge.

Carter Bryson was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.

New trial.

Criminal prosecution tried upon an Indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Adam Cope.

When the case was called for trial, the solicitor announced, in open court, that the state would not insist upon a verdict of murder in the first degree, but would ask for a verdict of murder in the second degree or manslaughter as the evidence might disclose. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, admitted the killing with a deadly weapon, and offered evidence tending to show that he shot the deceased in defense of himself, his home and his family.

Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter.

Judgment: Imprisonment in the state's prison for a period of five years.

Defendant appeals, assigning errors.

E. P. Stillwell, of Sylva, and Alley & Alley, of Waynesville, for appellant.

D. G. Brummitt, Atty. Gen. and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

STACY, C. J.

The evidence on behalf of the defendant, so. far as material to a proper understanding of the exceptions, tends to show that the homicide occurred at the home of the defendant, Balsam, N. C, in the nighttime, about 12:30 o'clock on the morning of December 10, 1929; that the deceased had previously come to the defendant's home on four different occasions that same night, each time threatening to kill the defendant and his wife, and each time being persuaded to leave; that on his fifth and last visit he paid no attention to the entreaties of the defendant and his wife, kicked open the front door, pointed his gun straight in the doorway, and said, "God damn you, I will"; and that the defendant, under these circumstances, while standing in his bedroom, or hallway, shot the deceased and killed him.

The evidence on behalf of the state was to the effect that the defendant was the aggressor, and killed the deceased needlessly or without just cause.

The following excerpt, taken from the charge, forms the basis of one of defendant's exceptive assignments of error:

"The right of self defense rests upon necessity, real or apparent, and cannot be exercised if there be a reasonable opportunity to retreat and avoid the difficulty, but if the assault in which the killing is brought about be violent and the circumstances are such that the retreat would be dangerous, he is not required even...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
41 cases
  • State v. Robinson
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 23, 1938
    ...170 N.C. 703, 86 S.E. 1005; State v. Robinson, 188 N.C. 784, 125 S.E. 617; State v. Waldroop, 193 N.C. 12, 135 S.E. 165; State v. Bryson, 200 N.C. 50, 156 S.E. 143; State Marshall, supra; State v. Koutro, 210 N.C. 144, 185 S.E. 682; State v. Reynolds, 212 N.C. 37, 192 S.E. 871; State v. Ter......
  • State v. Gregory
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 16, 1932
    ... ... exculpation. Under these conditions, we think the instruction ... that the killing was presumed to be a case of murder in the ... second degree was misleading and perhaps weighed too heavily ... against the defendant. State v. Bryson ... ...
  • State v. Spruill
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 6, 1945
    ...1148; State v. Gray, 162 N.C. 608, 77 S.E. 833, 45 L.R.A..N.S., 71; Curlee v. Scales, 200 N.C. 612, 158 S.E. 89; see also State v. Bryson, 200 N.C. 50, 156 S.E. 143; State v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427; State v. Reynolds, 212 N.C. 37, 192 S.E. 871; State v. Roddey, 219 N.C. 532, 1......
  • State v. Rawley
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 25, 1953
    ...effect: '1. That one may kill in defense of himself or his family, when necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. State v. Bryson, 200 N.C. 50, 156 S.E. 143; State v. Bost, 192 N.C. 1, 133 S.E. 176; State v. Johnson, 166 N.C. 392, 81 S.E. 941; State v. Gray, 162 N.C. 608, 77 S.E. 833......
  • Get Started for Free