State v. Kea, 146

Decision Date07 March 1962
Docket NumberNo. 146,146
Citation256 N.C. 492,124 S.E.2d 174
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE, v. Quincy Roy KEA.

John W. Campbell, Lumberton, and Napoleon B. Barefoot, Wilmington, for defendant, appellant.

T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., and G. A. Jones, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

It is unnecessary to review the evidence in detail. Suffice to say, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.

Defendant assigns as error, inter alia, this portion of the charge: 'Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation, as I have said to you, and is of two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter, as I have said, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation.' (Our italics) Defendant's assignment of error is based on exceptions duly taken.

The challenged instruction contains obvious error. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation, is murder in the second degree.

The court, in an earlier instruction, had given the correct definition of manslaughter. Defendant contended, if guilty at all, he was guilty of no greater crime than manslaughter. The failure, by reason of the conflicting instructions, to draw clearly and accurately the distinction between murder in the second degree and manslaughter must be held sufficiently prejudicial to entitle defendant to a new trial.

Whether the erroneous instruction is attributable to an error in taking or transcribing the charge, or to 'a slip of the tongue,' we must base decision on the record as it comes to us.

New trial.

WINBORNE, C. J., not sitting.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • State v. Cousins
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 6, 1976
    ...of the law to the facts. State v. Parrish, 275 N.C. 69, 165 S.E.2d 230; State v. Ingland, 278 N.C. 42, 178 S.E.2d 577; State v. Kea, 256 N.C. 492, 124 S.E.2d 174; State v. Gurley, 253 N.C. 55, 116 S.E.2d 143; State v. Johnson, 227 N.C. 587, 42 S.E.2d The State, citing State v. Cole, 280 N.C......
  • State v. Laliberte, No. COA08-1354 (N.C. App. 9/1/2009), COA08-1354
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • September 1, 2009
    ...manslaughter "is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation." State v. Kea, 256 N.C. 492, 493, 124 S.E.2d 174, 175 (1962). An intentional killing "done in the heat of passion suddenly aroused by adequate provocation or in the exercise of ......
  • State v. Williams
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • March 16, 1979
    ...129 (1971); State v. Benge, 272 N.C. 261, 158 S.E.2d 70 (1967); State v. Foust, 258 N.C. 453, 128 S.E.2d 889 (1963); State v. Kea, 256 N.C. 492, 124 S.E.2d 174 (1962). It is also well settled that one who kills a human being while under the influence of passion or in the heat of blood produ......
  • State v. Roseboro
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • January 30, 1970
    ...or implied, without premeditation and deliberation, and without the intention to kill or to inflict serious bodily injury. State v. Kea, 256 N.C. 492, 124 S.E.2d 174; State v. Foust, 258 N.C. 453, 128 S.E.2d 889; State v. Benge, 272 N.C. 261, 158 S.E.2d The evidence permitted the jury to fi......
  • 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