State v. Spruill
| Decision Date | 06 June 1945 |
| Docket Number | No. 217.,217. |
| Citation | 34 S.E.2d 142,225 N.C. 356 |
| Parties | STATE . v. SPRUILL. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Wayne County; C. Everett Thompson, Judge.
James Spruill was convicted of an assault with a deadly weapon, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death, with intent to kill, and he appeals.
New trial.
Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging" that defendant, "with force and arms * * * unlawfully, willfully and feloniously" assaulted "Ernest Tice with a deadly weapon, to wit, a pistol, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death, with intent to kill said Ernest Tice, etc."
In the trial court defendant pleaded not guilty and, as shown by the record, based his defense upon his legal right (1) to defend himself against a murderous assault made upon him by Ernest Tice and (2) to defend, and to evict trespassers from his home.
In the light of defendant's pleas, the evidence tends to show that Ernest Tice, accompanied by a woman, went to the home of defendant "just about the edge of dark on the night" of Saturday, July 29; that Ernest Tice bought and drank half a pint of corn whisky; that several others, men and women, were there, "cutting up and picking the guitar"; that defendant asked the guitar picker to go out of the house and "maybe the crowd would leave"; that the request was heeded, and Ernest Tice and two women went out and got in his automobile, after which defendant fastened the screen door; that then, while defendant and two others, a man and a woman, were in the house, talking about the woman leaving, Ernest Tice and one of the women who had gone out with him, came back to the door of the house, and defendant said, "Don't open the door"; that thereupon Ernest Tice "broke the staple on the door", and defendant forbade him to come in and he stopped, but the woman entered, and defendant "shot the door back, and Ernest ran against the door and came on in anyhow"; that he had a knife and made for defendant, who first shot at the door facing, and then as Ernest didn't stop, he shot him in the neck; and that "the screen on the outside was pulled open or torn off from the top hinge and inside the door the latch had been bursted off".
Judgment: Imprisonment in county jail for three years to be assigned to work upon the public roads under supervision of State Highway and Public Works Commission.
Defendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
N. W. Outlaw, of Goldsboro, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant complains, and rightly so, that while the law arising upon the evidence given in the case in so far as it relates to his plea of self-defense was declared and explained in the charge to the jury, as it should have been, the court failed to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence given in the case as it relates to defendant's legal right to defend his home from attack, and to evict trespassers therefrom.
The right of a person to defend his home from attack is a substantive right, as is the right to evict trespassers from his home, These principles of law have been discussed in numerous decisions of this Court, among which are these: State v. Crook, 133 N.C. 672, 45 S.E. 564; State v. Scott, 142 N.C. 582, 55 S.E. 69, 9 L.R.A., N.S., 1148; State v. Gray, 162 N.C. 608, 77 S.E. 833, 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....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Morgan
... ... See also State v. Anderson, 40 N.C.App. 318, 253 S.E.2d 48 (1979); State v. Robinson, 40 N.C.App. 514, 253 S.E.2d 311 (1979). Cf. State v. Jones, 299 N.C. 103, 261 S.E.2d 1 (1980) ("defense of home" instruction); State v. Miller, 267 N.C. 409, 148 S.E.2d 279 (1966) (same); State v. Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E.2d 142 (1945) (same). It has also been held that where supported by the evidence in a claim of self-defense, an instruction negating defendant's duty to retreat in his home or premises must be given even in the absence of a request by defendant. E.g., State v. Poplin, 238 ... ...
-
Edwards v. Johnson, 453
... ... The right to defend one's home against forcible entry by an intruder is well settled in this State. A householder, however, may not intentionally shoot even a trespasser until he attempts to force an entry in a manner sufficient to lead a ... Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E.2d 142, 'The right of a person to defend his home from attack is a substantive right.' ... It has been ... ...
-
State v. Jones
... ... Thus, when there is competent evidence in the case to raise the issue of defense of home, the jury must be instructed on this defense and the fact that the jury was instructed on defense of a family member does not cure the error. See, State v. Miller, supra; see, State v. Spruill,225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E.2d 142 (1945). The trial judge must declare and explain the law arising on the evidence. G.S. 15A-1232 ... Here, defendant requested that the trial judge instruct on defense of home; however, since this defense is a substantial and essential feature of the ... ...
- State v. Spruill