State v. Coble

• Citation: 99 S.E. 339,177 N.C. 588
• Decision Date: 21 May 1919
• Docket Number: 379.
• Parties: STATE v. COBLE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina

99 S.E. 339

177 N.C. 588

STATE v. COBLE.

No. 379.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 21, 1919

Allen J., dissenting.

Appeal from Superior Court, Guilford County; Lane, Judge.

In a homicide case, where accused while pointing a gun at one person killed another, who attempted to jerk the gun away from him, whether accused was guilty of manslaughter held for the jury.

James Coble was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals. No error.

The defendant was indicted for murder in the first degree. At the beginning of the trial the solicitor stated in open court that he would ask a conviction only for murder in the second degree or of manslaughter.

The evidence is stated in the case settled upon agreement as follows:

"James Greeson on Christmas Day, 1918, was running a small illicit still near his house in Guilford county. On the morning of that day Elwood Brothers and James Coble, the defendant were present looking on. They were taking no part whatever in the operation of the still. James Coble had with him, as usual, his old double-barreled gun. About 11 o'clock that day W. L. May, Henry Amick, the deceased, and Monroe Coble came to the said still. Some conversation took place between Henry Amick and James Coble. Henry Amick was joking and teasing James Coble about having gotten tight and hollering and shooting off his gun on former occasions. After a short time May, Monroe Coble, and Henry Amick left. About 5 o'clock that afternoon James Coble was at the house of James Greeson, when May, Monroe Coble, and Henry Amick again came to that place. James Coble had his gun. It was proven that it was his habit to carry his gun whereever he went, and there is no evidence that he had it along with him for any purpose of making trouble or using the same in a fight. Henry Amick also had a gun. Monroe Coble began to quarrel with James Coble, and invited him down into the woods to fight. James Coble refused to go. After some further words between Monroe Coble and James Coble, Monroe Coble cursed James Coble and said that he was going to 'bat his eyes out.' James Coble stepped back, the parties being then ten or fifteen paces apart, and said, 'No, you won't;' and the witness Elwood Brothers testified that James Coble cocked his gun but did not present it; that defendant then stepped back two or three steps, cocked his gun, pointed it at Monroe Coble, and at that time deceased ran in between defendant and Monroe Coble and said, 'No shooting here!' and caught hold of the end of the defendant's gun. Whereupon Monroe Coble rushed upon James Coble, striking at him with both hands, and Henry Amick, his gun in his hands, also rushed upon him. Amick passed Monroe Coble, and caught hold of the barrel of James Coble's gun, and jerked it violently three or four times. The gun was discharged and killed Henry Amick, and immediately he fell to the ground."

The defendant, James Coble, stated he did not say or do anything to provoke the assault upon him by Monroe Coble; that he declined Monroe's invitation to go into the woods and fight; that he did not cock the gun; that he did not pull the trigger or discharge the gun, but that it was discharged by the violent wrenching and pulling the gun by Henry Amick; that it was old, and frequently had gone off before accidentally.

The judge in reciting the state's evidence further says that "Coble had been asked to leave by Greeson." This appears from the context to have been Coble, the defendant, and not Monroe Coble, the man with whom he had a quarrel. The defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and sentenced to two years in the state's prison. Appeal by defendant.

W. P. Bynum, of Rockingham, and R. C. Strudwick, of Greensboro, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Assistant Attorney General Nash, for the State.

CLARK C.J.

The exceptions are to the refusal of a motion to nonsuit and to the following paragraphs in the charge:

"Now, if you should find beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a sudden quarrel arose between these men, and that in the heat of passion and in sudden fury because of things that were said to him by these other men or done to him, or by any combat which came on between them in which they engaged suddenly about matters, this defendant was at fault in entering into and fighting in combat wilfully, fought willfully and wrongfully, that is, not in self-defense, and in the heat of passion slew the deceased, then you would return a verdict of guilty of manslaughter."

Also to the following charge:

"Manslaughter may be committed also if a person by the careless, negligent use of a fire-arm, and in the presence of other persons, either through carelessness or negligence, wanton, reckless disregard of the safety of other persons, points a firearm at them, and handles it in such reckless negligent manner as that it is exploded and causes the death of another. That would be manslaughter, although no death may have been intended or injury intended."

And again to the following part of the charge "Now, a person cannot plead self-defense if they are at fault in bringing on the difficulty, by their own conduct in engaging in and bringing on the difficulty. If they cause another to assault them, they cannot plead self-defense, or if they enter into a combat or fight willingly or wrongfully. A person, in order to plead self-defense, must be without fault in bringing on or provoking the difficulty before he can justify the use of force, or he must in good faith abandon the difficulty after it has started, or retreat as far as he can with safety, and then he can turn and defend himself by using such force as is apparently...