State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 13 March 1906 |
| Citation | 141 N. C. 769,53 S.E. 311 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. HILL. |
Where the evidence in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon showed that defendant drew his knife and cut at his assailant, a stronger man, who was advancing on him with his right hand drawn back as if to strike with his fist, the issue of self-defense should have been submitted to the jury.
The judge cannot direct a verdict against the defendant in a criminal case.
Appeal from Superior Court, Onslow County; Councill, Judge.
W. F. Hill was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon, and appeals. Reversed.
Indictment for assault with a deadly weapon. There was evidence of the state tending to show that the defendant was guilty of an inexcusable assault with a knife on one H. A. Jarman. The defendant in his own behalf testified: On cross-examination: At this point in the defendant's testimony, the judge stated in the presence of the jury that he would instruct them that the defend ant was guilty upon his own statement. The defendant excepted. The defendant had other material witnesses, but did not introduce them owing the court's intimation. Verdict of guilty as charged in the bill of indictment, and from the judgment pronounced, the defendant appealed.
C. L. Abernethy, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
HOKE, J. (after stating the case). The defendant, by exceptions properly noted, assigns for error, first, that on the testimony he was entitled to have his plea of self-defense passed on by the jury; second, that in any event the court erred in directing a verdict against him.
We are of opinion that both points are well taken. It is true, as a general rule, that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Bridges
...218 N.C. 280, 10 S.E.2d 815; State v. Redman, 217 N.C. 483, 8 S.E.2d 623; State v. Maxwell, 215 N.C. 32, 1 S.E.2d 125; State v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311; v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275. He stresses the Howell and Maxwell cases as being quite pertinent and directly in point. Viewing the charge......
-
State v. Bridges, 436.
...218 N.C. 280, 10 S.E.2d 815; State v. Redman, 217 N.C. 483, 8 S.E.2d 623; State v. Maxwell, 215 N.C. 32, 1 S.E.2d 125; State v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311; State v. Dixon, 75 N.C. 275. He stresses the Howell and Maxwell cases as being quite pertinent and directly in point Viewing the c......
-
State v. Dickens, 145.
...part of the defendant." There the fact of possession did not necessarily establish possession for the purpose of sale. In State v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311, where the charge was assault with a deadly weapon and defendant pleaded self-defense, the judge stated in the presence of the j......
-
State v. Dickens
...part of the defendant." There the fact of possession did not necessarily establish possession for the purpose of sale. In State v. Hill, 141 N.C. 769, 53 S.E. 311, where charge was assault with a deadly weapon and defendant pleaded self-defense, the judge stated in the presence of the jury ......