State v. Price, 272--E
| Decision Date | 11 October 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 272--E,272--E |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. James Alford PRICE. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.
E. Glenn Scott, Jr., Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
Defendant's wife, while testifying in behalf of her husband, was asked on direct examination the following question: 'Do you know your father's reputation for the use of violence, particularly when he was under the influence of alcoholic beverages?' The State objected, the court sustained the objection and defendant excepted to the court's ruling. Defendant's assignment of error based on this exception is without merit. Since the record does not show what the witness would have testified if permitted to answer, it cannot be determined whether the ruling was prejudicial. State v. Poolos, 241 N.C. 382, 85 S.E.2d 342. It is noted that the court admitted evidence that Wright had a general reputation for violence while drinking and evidence of Wright's specific acts of violence toward defendant while drinking.
Defendant excepted to and assigns as error excerpts from the charge relating to what must be established to raise the presumptions that the killing was unlawful and with malice. It is well established that these presumptions arise 'when the defendant Intentionally assaults another with a deadly weapon and thereby proximately causes the death of the person assaulted.' State v. Gordon, 241 N.C. 356, 358, 85 S.E.2d 322, 323, and cases cited; State v. Adams, 241 N.C. 559, 85 S.E.2d 918; State v. Wagoner, 249 N.C. 637, 107 S.E.2d 83; State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50, 116 S.E.2d 171; State v. Phillips, 264 N.C. 508, 515, 142 S.E.2d 337, 340. When considered in the light most favorable to the State, there was plenary evidence tending to show defendant intentionally shot Wright and thereby proximately caused Wright's death. Error, if any, in the court's instructions on this feature of the case was in favor of and not prejudicial to defendant.
Defendant excepted to and assigns as error portions of the charge relating to defendant's rights when acting in his own defense and in defense of his home and family. Careful consideration of the court's instructions on this feature of the case does not disclose prejudicial error. These instructions are in substantial accord with numerous decisions of this Court.
Defendant's more serious exceptions and assignments of error relate to portions of the charge as given bearing upon whether the actual shooting of Wright was of an accidental nature and upon whether the court failed to charge fully 'on the issue of accidental death and the possibility of a verdict of involuntary manslaughter.'
The court instructed the jury in substance as follows: If the jury found the actual shooting of Wright was not intended by defendant but was accidental, this fact was for consideration in determining whether defendant used excessive force under the circumstances in defense of himself and of his home and family.
Defendant contends the jury should have been instructed to return a verdict of not guilty if they found defendant did not intend that the bullet discharged from the pistol he fired would actually strike Wright; and that it was error to limit the significance of such fact to consideration in determining whether defendant used excessive force in defense of himself and of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Winford
...kill. This is patently favorable to defendant, and defendant cannot ordinarily complain of instructions favorable to him. State v. Price, 271 N.C. 521, 157 S.E.2d 127. The only possible vice in this instruction is that the giving of almost contemporaneous instructions--one correct and one i......
-
Beam v. Almond, 194
... ... a demurrer Ore tenus upon the following grounds, in substance: (1) The complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendants Edmond D. Almond and wife, ... The notes represent the price of an automobile purchased from the plaintiff and used by the defendant and her family. The ... ...
-
State v. Propst, 329
...S.E.2d 83; State v. Revis, 253 N.C. 50, 116 S.E.2d 171; State v. Phillips, 264 N.C. 508, 515, 142 S.E.2d 337, 340; State v. Price, 271 N.C. 521, 525, 157 S.E.2d 127, 129--130; State v. Cooper, 273 N.C. 51, 57, 159 S.E.2d 305, 309. 'The presumptions do not arise if an instrument, which is Pe......
-
State v. Beal
...has the right to put another in fear and thereby force him to leave a place where he has a right to be.'" State v. Price, 271 N.C. 521, 526, 157 S.E.2d 127, 130 (1967) (quoting State v. Martin, 85 N.C. 508, 510 (1881)). Defendant argues that by extension, no man may forcefully prevent anoth......