State v. Marshall
Decision Date | 10 April 1935 |
Docket Number | No. 290.,290. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE. v. MARSHALL. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Burke County; Harding, Judge.
Rex Marshall was convicted of manslaughter, and he appeals.
No error.
Criminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Richard Lloyd.
Verdict: Guilty of manslaughter.
Judgment: Imprisonment in the State's Prison at hard labor for a term of four years.
The defendant appeals, assigning errors.
S. J. Ervin and S. J. Ervin, Jr., both of Morganton, for appellant.
A. A. F. Seawell, Atty. Gen., and John W. Aiken, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
When the case was called for trial, the solicitor announced 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.
Thereupon, the defendant admitted the killing with a deadly weapon, and assumed the burden of rebutting the presumptions arising from such admission. State v. Kea-ton, 206 N. C. 682, 175 S. E. 296.
[21 The homicide occurred in the defendant's filling station. The deceased had been drinking, and, with imbecilic courtesy, undertook to engage the defendant's wife in a "whispered conversation. This was repulsed and the deceased ordered to leave the building. The defendant testified:
Defendant's wife testified: "When Rex shot I saw him (deceased) grab for the hammer."
It appears, therefore, from the defendant's own testimony that he was not in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm when he shot the deceased; nor did he apprehend that he was in such danger. "I did not shoot to kill" is his statement, and it appears from the record that the deceased did not reach for the hammer until after he was shot. The clear inference is that the defendant used excessive force. State v. Keeter, 206 N. C. 482, 174 S. E. 298.
The right to kill in self-defense or in defense of one's family or habitation rests upon necessity, real or apparent, and the pertinent decisions are to the 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Robinson
... ... 622, 46 S.E. 730; State v. Quick, 150 N.C. 820, ... 64 S.E. 168; State v. Gregory, 203 N.C. 528, 166 ... S.E. 387; State v. Terrell, 212 N.C. 145, 193 S.E ... The ... plea of self-defense or excusable homicide rests upon ... necessity, real or apparent. In State v. Marshall, ... 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427, 428, the principle is clearly ... stated: "The pertinent decisions are to the 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 ... ...
-
State v. Norman
...316 N.C. 48, 53, 340 S.E.2d 439, 442 (1986); State v. Spaulding, 298 N.C. 149, 157, 257 S.E.2d 391, 396 (1979); State v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 129, 179 S.E. 427, 428 (1935); State v. Kidd, 60 N.C.App. 140, 142, 298 S.E.2d 406, 408 (1982) disc. rev. denied, 307 N.C. 700, 301 S.E.2d 393 (19......
-
State v. Mangum
...jury. State v. Rawley, 237 N.C. 233, 74 S.E.2d 620; State v. Terrell, supra; State v. Koutro, 210 N.C. 144, 185 S.E. 682; State v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427; State v. Glenn, 198 N. C. 79, 150 S.E. 663; State v. Robinson, 188 N.C. 784, 125 S.E. The court properly overruled defenda......
-
State v. Spruill
...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, 14 S.E.2d 526; State v. Anderson, 222 N.C. 148, 2......