State v. Shaw, 152
| Decision Date | 25 November 1964 |
| Docket Number | No. 152,152 |
| Citation | 263 N.C. 99,138 S.E.2d 772 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Lessie Mae SHAW. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen., T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard for the State.
Yarborough, Blanchard & Tucker, Raleigh, for defendant appellant.
Defendant offered evidence tending to show that she killed her husband in self-defense. Her sole assignment of error, except two formal ones, is to a portion of the charge in respect to her defense that she killed her husband in self-defense. A charge must be read as a whole and not in detached fragments. A close study of the judge's charge in its entirety shows clearly that the court charged fully, amply, and correctly on all aspects of the law of self-defense arising upon the evidence in the case, and that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant's claim of self-defense was as declared in the following cases, and almost in the verbatim language of these cases: State v. Fowler, 250 N.C. 595, 108 S.E.2d 892; State v. Goode, 249 N.C. 632, 107 S.E.2d 70; State v. Rawley, 237 N.C. 233, 74 S.E.2d 620; State v. Ellerbe, 223 N.C. 770, 28 S.E.2d 519; State v. Robinson, 213 N.C. 273, 195 S.E. 824; State v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427.
In the trial below we find
No error.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Powell
...of that doubt and to find him not guilty.' A charge must be construed contextually and not in disjointed fragments. State v. Shaw, 263 N.C. 99, 138, S.E.2d 772; State v. Lee, 192 N.C. 225, 134 S.E. 458. So construed, it is obvious that the statement that taking the pistol from the purse wou......
-
State v. Robinson
...examined the charge to the jury with care. The charge to the jury must be read as a whole and not in detached parts. State v. Shaw, 263 N.C. 99, 138 S.E.2d 772 (1964). When the charge presents the law fairly and clearly to the jury, it will afford no ground for reversing the judgment, altho......
- Holshouser v. Morgan, 532