State v. Curie
| Decision Date | 25 July 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 7312SC539,7312SC539 |
| Citation | 19 N.C.App. 17,198 S.E.2d 28 |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Thomas CURIE. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Emerson D. Wall, Associate Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
Sol G. Cherry, Public Defender, Twelfth Judicial District, Fayetteville, for defendant appellant.
The only assignment of error brought forward and argued by defendant relates to the failure of the court to allow defendant to testify with respect to his mental and psychiatric problems. After hearing the proffered testimony on voir dire in the absence of the jury, the court ruled it inadmissible.
Pertinent portions of the excluded testimony are summarized as follows: Following his arrest, defendant was sent to Dorothea Dix Hospital for observation but he would not cooperate with the doctors there because they had long hair, were 'weirdos,' and he had no confidence in them. Efforts by defendant and his counsel to get the psychiatrist at Ft. Bragg to examine and evaluate defendant failed. In 1964 defendant was treated by a psychiatrist in Michigan and some two or three years prior to the trial, defendant received a head injury. When committing the acts complained of, defendant was aware of where he was and vaguely aware of what he was doing, but it did not seem real.
Defendant's counsel advised the trial court that defendant was not pleading temporary insanity as he had no evidence to support that plea. Counsel argued to the trial court, and argues here, that the issue is not one of insanity but whether 'evidence of prior psychiatric problems, which may have been caused in part by a blow to the head of the defendant-witness, (is) competent for the purpose of showing lack of specific intent to commit the offenses of which this defendant was convicted.' Under the facts in this case, we hold that the court did not commit prejudicial error in excluding the testimony.
In 2 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 2, p. 482, we find: 'Where a statute specifically forbids a particular act, the commission of the forbidden act is the offense, regardless of intent.'
In State v. Hales, 256 N.C. 27, 122 S.E.2d 768, 90 A.L.R.2d 804 (1961), in an opinion by Justice (later Chief Justice) Parker, we find:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jones
...requirement for assault, I note there is conflict among our jurisprudence. Indeed, while this Court stated in State v. Curie, 19 N.C.App. 17, 20, 198 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1973), that "[i]ntent is not an element of ... assault with a deadly weapon," it also stated in State v. Coffey, 43 N.C.App. 5......
-
United States v. Geddie
...State v. Woods, 126 N.C.App. 581, 586–87, 486 S.E.2d 255 (1997) (stating AWDWISI is a general intent crime); State v. Curie, 19 N.C.App. 17, 20, 198 S.E.2d 28 (1973) (same). Indeed, this reading is confirmed by North Carolina's pattern jury instructions. See N.C. Pattern Jury Instructions—C......
-
Dammons v. Carroll, No. 1:04 CV 00205.
...v. Jones, 353 N.C. 159, 164-65, 538 S.E.2d 917, 923 (2000) (citing Eason, 242 N.C. at 65, 86 S.E.2d at 778); see also State v. Curie, 19 N.C.App. 17, 198 S.E.2d 28 (1973) ("Intent is not an element of ... assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury."). No argument has been presen......
-
State v. Murray, COA11-270
...injury is not a specific intent crime. State v. Woods, 126 N.C. App. 581, 587, 486 S.E.2d 255, 258 (1997) (citing State v. Curie, 19 N.C. App. 17, 20, 198 S.E.2d 28, 30 (1973)); see also State v. Hunt, 100 N.C. App. 43, 46, 394 S.E.2d 221, 223 (1990) (stating that "intent is not a prescribe......