{ "id": 8524176, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. JACKIE DEAN GRUMBLES, Defendant", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grumbles", "decision_date": "1991-12-17", "docket_number": "No. 9115SC62", "first_page": "766", "last_page": "771", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 N.C. App. 766" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-32", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "8 ALR4th 1268", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "243 S.E.2d 367", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "295 N.C. 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560971 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/295/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 S.E.2d 465", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "316 N.C. 111", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4694881 ], "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/316/0111-01" ] }, { "cite": "272 S.E.2d 859", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "301 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570338 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/301/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 S.E.2d 40", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "299 N.C. 707", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575806 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/299/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "301 S.E.2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "61 N.C. App. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8523179 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/61/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 S.E.2d 719", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 293", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567490 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0293-01" ] }, { "cite": "239 S.E.2d 406", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "293 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566760 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/293/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-32", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 614, "char_count": 12814, "ocr_confidence": 0.769, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.15220862633271e-07, "percentile": 0.7686287887826665 }, "sha256": "be0b8d1046c08dd2ff8982e90203dbf8c2b6e4e9c6b067d68b9b52020956bfa2", "simhash": "1:2e4ac42c7e7f3de4", "word_count": 2125 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:04.224888+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges PARKER and WYNN concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. JACKIE DEAN GRUMBLES, Defendant" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendant brings forth seven assignments of error for our review. He does not address his third and seventh assignments of error in his brief and they are therefore deemed abandoned. N.C.R. App. P., Rule 28. In his remaining assignments, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motions to dismiss for lack of' jurisdiction, failure to plead a charge, and insufficiency of the evidence regarding the use of a deadly weapon. He also assigns error to the trial court\u2019s jury instructions regarding the use of a deadly weapon and the submission of verdict choices including assault with a deadly weapon.\nThe thrust of defendant\u2019s argument to this Court concerns the classification of defendant\u2019s hands as a deadly weapon. Defendant\u2019s first and second assignments of error, the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and failure to plead a charge are argued together in defendant\u2019s brief. These assignments are used to support defendant\u2019s contention that the information in his indictment is insufficient to support a felony charge. Instead, he contends if the indictment supports any charge it would be only a misdemeanor charge of assault over which the superior court would have no jurisdiction. We disagree.\nOur Supreme Court noted in State v. Palmer, 293 N.C. 633, 239 S.E.2d 406 (1977), that it is sufficient for indictments or warrants seeking to charge a crime in which one of the elements is the use of a deadly weapon (1) to name the weapon and (2) either to state expressly that the weapon used was a \u201cdeadly weapon\u201d or to allege such as would necessarily demonstrate the deadly character of the weapon. (Emphasis in original.) A deadly weapon is \u201cany article, instrument or substance which is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.\u201d State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 283 S.E.2d 719 (1981). This Court has held in State v. Jacobs, 61 N.C. App. 610, 301 S.E.2d 429 (1983), that a defendant\u2019s fists could have been deadly weapons given the manner in which they were used and the relative size and condition of the parties. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-32 classifies assaults with deadly weapons either with intent to kill or inflicting serious injury as felonies.\nIn the present case, the indictment more than adequately states information which would support a charge of assault with a deadly weapon. The indictment names defendant\u2019s hands as the deadly weapon and expressly states defendant\u2019s hands were used as \u201cdeadly weapons.\u201d Furthermore, it is clear by the criteria set out in Jacobs, supra, that this is a case where defendant\u2019s fists could be considered deadly weapons. Defendant weighed approximately one hundred seventy five pounds at the time of the incident while the victim of his attack weighed approximately one hundred seven pounds. Defendant beat Ms. Barton about the head with his fists, breaking Ms. Barton\u2019s jaw, requiring extensive hospitalization. Further, he choked Ms. Barton three separate times and left marks around her neck that appeared to be \u201cjust like fingerprints.\u201d\nThus, the information contained in defendant\u2019s indictment sufficiently states a charge amounting to the felony of assault with a deadly weapon. It is beyond dispute that our superior courts have jurisdiction involving felony charges. See generally, N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 7A-271 (1989). Therefore, defendant\u2019s argument regarding lack of jurisdiction is without merit and is overruled. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error concerning the failure of his indictment to plead a charge is also overruled.\nDefendant assigns as error the trial court\u2019s failure to grant his motion to dismiss the charges against him at the close of all the evidence. Defendant contends the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to classify his hands as deadly weapons and since the State failed to meet its burden of proof, the charges against defendant should be dismissed. Further, defendant contends that even if the State did meet its burden of proof on the element of a deadly weapon the evidence presented did not create a jury question. Therefore, defendant argues the trial court should have determined, as a matter of law, that defendant\u2019s hands were not deadly weapons. We disagree.\nIn ruling on a motion to dismiss, the trial court is required to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, drawing all reasonable inferences in the State\u2019s favor. State v. King, 299 N.C. 707, 264 S.E.2d 40 (1980). A motion to dismiss must be denied if the State has offered substantial evidence against the defendant of every essential element of the crime charged. \u201cSubstantial evidence\u201d is defined as that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. State v. Fletcher, 301 N.C. 709, 272 S.E.2d 859 (1981).\nIt has long been the law of this State that \u201c[w]here the alleged deadly weapon and the manner of its use are of such character as to admit of but one conclusion, the question as to whether or not it is deadly ... is one of law, and the court must take responsibility of so declaring. (Emphasis in original.) State v. Torain, 316 N.C. 111, 340 S.E.2d 465 (1986). However, where the instrument, according to the manner of its use or the part of the body at which the blow is aimed, may or may not be likely to produce [death or great bodily harm], its allegedly deadly character is one of fact to be determined by the jury. State v. Joyner, 295 N.C. 55, 243 S.E.2d 367 (1978).\nIt is clear that under the rule set out in State v. Jacobs, supra, hands may be considered deadly weapons, given the manner in which they were used and the relative size and condition of the parties involved. The State\u2019s evidence showed the manner in which defendant used his hands to assault the victim had devastating physical effect. Defendant choked the victim so severely as to break her jaw and leave fingerprints around her neck. Further, the State\u2019s evidence showed the great disparity in the size of the victim and defendant. Defendant also admitted to being strong enough to wrestle a gun away from a fellow construction worker after defendant had been shot in the stomach by this individual.\nThe record reflects the trial court believed the issue of hands as deadly weapons to be \u201cclose.\u201d Under the rule in Joyner, supra, the trial court properly allowed the jury to decide this issue. Therefore, this assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s final assignments of error concern the trial court\u2019s instructions to the jury on deadly weapons and the submission of a verdict sheet with verdict choices including assault with a deadly weapon. For the reasons we have stated, these assignments are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges PARKER and WYNN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Valerie B. Spalding, for the State.", "G. Keith Whited for defendant-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. JACKIE DEAN GRUMBLES, Defendant\nNo. 9115SC62\n(Filed 17 December 1991)\n1. Assault and Battery \u00a7 41 (NCI4th)\u2014 domestic assault \u2014 hands \u2014 deadly weapons\nThe information contained in an assault defendant\u2019s indictment sufficiently states a charge amounting to the felony of assault with a deadly weapon where the indictment names defendant\u2019s hands as the deadly weapon and expressly states that defendant\u2019s hands were used as deadly weapons; defendant weighed approximately one hundred seventy five pounds at the time of the incident while the victim weighed approximately one hundred seven pounds; defendant beat his girlfriend about the head with his fists amd broke her jaw, requiring extensive hospitalization; and he choked her three separate times and left marks around her neck that were like fingerprints.\nAm Jur 2d, Assault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 48, 53.\nParts of human body, other than feet, as deadly or dangerous weapons for purposes of statutes aggravating offenses such as assault and robbery. 8 ALR4th 1268.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 41 (NCI4th)\u2014 domestic assault \u2014 hands as deadly weapons\nThe trial court correctly denied defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss charges of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury at the close of the evidence where defendant assaulted his girlfriend with his hands; although defendant contended that there was insufficient evidence to classify his hands as deadly weapons, the State\u2019s evidence showed that the manner in which defendant used his hands to assault the victim had a devastating physical effect; defendant choked the victim so severely as to break her jaw and leave fingerprints around her neck; there was a great disparity in the size of the victim and defendant; and defendant admitted being strong enough to wrestle a gun away from a fellow construction worker after defendant had been shot in the stomach by that individual. The record reflects that the trial court believed the issue of hands as deadly weapons to be close and the court properly allowed the jury to decide the issue.\nAm Jur 2d, Assault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 48, 53.\nParts of human body, other than feet, as deadly or dangerous weapons for purposes of statutes aggravating offenses such as assault and robbery. 8 ALR4th 1268.\nAPPEAL by defendant from judgment entered 27 July 1990 in ALAMANCE County Superior Court by Judge W. Steven Allen, Jr. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 October 1991.\nDefendant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury in violation of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 14-32(a) by using his hands to beat and choke his girlfriend. The State\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show the following facts and circumstances. Defendant and his girlfriend, Pamela Jean Barton, had lived together for approximately 12 years. They separated in September 1989, after defendant had hit Ms. Barton. On 25 November 1989, defendant phoned Ms. Barton and invited her to watch a basketball game with him. After several refusals, Ms. Barton accepted defendant\u2019s invitation and allowed defendant to take her to his home.\nOnce at defendant\u2019s home, the two began to drink and eventually went to bed together. The next day they awoke and began drinking again. The following Monday, 27 November 1989, Ms. Barton accompanied defendant to a bar in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, where she helped defendant pack equipment to be taken out of the bar. They returned to defendant\u2019s house at approximately 6:00 p.m. Defendant and Ms. Barton ate dinner and then began to drink. Ms. Barton testified that at this point they both had become intoxicated and then went to bed together.\nLater that evening, defendant and Ms. Barton got out of bed and went into the living room where they began to talk. Defendant began to question Ms. Barton concerning her social activities, i.e., who she had seen since they had separated. Ms. Barton told defendant her activities were none of his business. At this point, defendant \u201cgot [a] real wild look on his face.\u201d Ms. Barton became scared because she had seen that \u201ccrazy\u201d look several times in the past when defendant would beat her. Defendant jumped off the couch where the two were seated and then hit Ms. Barton in the right eye with his right fist. Defendant then grabbed Ms. Barton by the throat with both hands and began to choke her. Defendant stopped choking Ms. Barton, paused, and then began to choke her again. He repeated this process three times before stopping his attack on Ms. Barton.\nMs. Barton was bleeding from her nose, ear and mouth. She stopped the bleeding and went to bed. Several days later, Ms. Barton sought medical treatment for her injuries. She suffered a broken jaw as a result of defendant\u2019s attempts to choke her. Her right eye was swollen and red. She was hospitalized and could not eat solid food for approximately one month. Ms. Barton testified she was afraid to press charges against defendant or to seek medical attention because of defendant\u2019s threat to \u201cget even with [her].\u201d At the time of the attack, Ms. Barton weighed approximately one hundred seven pounds and defendant weighed approximately one hundred seventy five pounds. After leaving the hospital, Ms. Barton eventually decided to press charges against defendant.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence at trial tended to show that his acts were in reaction to Ms. Barton\u2019s attack upon him. Defendant testified Ms. Barton sprang up from the couch, grabbed his lip and \u201ccut down in [it]\u201d with her fingernail. Defendant further testified he had no choice but to grab Ms. Barton by the neck as she was \u201cclawing\u201d at him with her arms. Defendant explained he had to do this three times to get Ms. Barton off of him.\nDefendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. The trial court sentenced defendant to three years imprisonment, the presumptive sentence imposed for this felony.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Associate Attorney General Valerie B. Spalding, for the State.\nG. Keith Whited for defendant-appellant." }, "file_name": "0766-01", "first_page_order": 794, "last_page_order": 799 }