State v. Street
| Citation | 86 S.E.2d 277,241 N.C. 689 |
| Decision Date | 23 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 217,217 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Nellie Collis STREET. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Atty. Gen. Harry McMullan, Asst. Atty. Gen. Claude L. Love, for the State.
W. C. Berry, Bakersville, G. D. Bailey and W. E. Anglin, Burnsville, for the defendant.
The appellant excepts to and assigns as error nine portions of the Court's charge to the jury; all other exceptions have been abandoned.
We deem it necessary and appropriate in the disposition of this appeal to consider the following portions of the charge:
'On the other hand one cannot use the excessive force of taking human life.' Exception No. 6
'And if you shall have first found an unlawful killing with a deadly weapon, the burden would then be upon the defendant to satisfy you that in shooting the deceased she did not do so unjustified and with malice; and if she has so satisfied you and has not gone further, that would be an unlawful killing and would constitute manslaughter.' Exception No. 9
We concede that the illustration used, to which the defendant's fifth exception was taken, does illustrate what is meant by real or apparent danger, but on the other hand it was predicated upon a factual situation wholly unrelated to the facts in the instant case. The statute requires the court, in both criminal and civil actions, to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence in the particular case and not upon a set of hypothetical facts. G.S. § 1-180. As a consequence of the use of the above illustration, we think the jury might have been misled, since the deceased did not jump out of the dark or flash a pistol or any other weapon on the defendant.
The sixth exception arises out of the language used by the court in connection with the defendant's right to expel or remove a person from her home. The court charged that a person in his own home has a right, for a reason or no reason, to order someone off his premises, and the person so ordered has the right to leave; and when one is ordered to leave the premises and refuses to go, then the one so ordering him has the right to use such force as is reasonably necessary to cause the intruder to leave. The court then said: 'On the other hand one cannot use the excessive force of taking human life.' This was followed with the statement that these are all abstract statements of the law which may be applicable to the facts in this case, depending upon the facts which the jury might find.
We think the instruction complained of was prejudicial since the justification or nonjustification of the killing of the deceased by the defendant grew out of circumstances connected with the defendant's request to the deceased and the two Petersons to leave her home. Whether the force used was actually necessary to repel the attack the defendant claims was being made on her, or whether some other or lesser force might have been adequate for her protection, was not the question for the jury to decide, but whether, when she did use the force...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jennings
...of a human being with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation. State v. Foust, 258 N.C. 453, 128 S.E.2d 889; State v. Street, 241 N.C. 689, 86 S.E.2d 277. There was plenary evidence that deceased died from a wound intentionally inflicted by defendant with a rifle, thus creating t......
-
State v. Chamberlain
...expressed or implied, and without premeditation or deliberation. State v. Wynn, 278 N.C. 513, 180 S.E.2d 135 (1971); State v. Street, 241 N.C. 689, 86 S.E.2d 277 (1955). One who kills a human being while under the influence of passion or in the heat of blood produced by adequate provocation......
-
State v. Mangum
...degree is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation. State v. Crisp, supra; State v. Street, 241 N.C. 689, 86 S. E.2d 277; State v. Benson, supra [183 N. C. 795, 111 S.E. 'The law then casts upon the defendant the burden of proving to the ......
-
State v. Horner
...a felony, or from a lawful act negligently done.' ' The unlawful killing of a human being without malice is manslaughter. State v. Street, 241 N.C. 689, 86 S.E.2d 277. The indictment charges manslaughter. G.S. § 15-144. We conclude that the State, considering its evidence in the light most ......