{
  "id": 11916810,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY STEVEN WILLIAMS, Defendant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1995-07-18",
  "docket_number": "No. COA92-134",
  "first_page": "601",
  "last_page": "603",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "119 N.C. App. 601"
    }
  ],
  "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": "447 S.E.2d 435",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 N.C. 777",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2536714
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/336/0777-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2550995
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "434 S.E.2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 861",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524459
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0861-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "433 S.E.2d 184",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "334 N.C. 438",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2529504,
        2528804,
        2530665,
        2531724,
        2530269
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/334/0438-03",
        "/nc/334/0438-02",
        "/nc/334/0438-01",
        "/nc/334/0438-04",
        "/nc/334/0438-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 L. Ed. 2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12227
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/508/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "429 S.E.2d 413",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 N.C. App. 306",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8525492
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/110/0306-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 L.Ed.2d 339",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6217574
      ],
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/498/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "498 U.S. 29",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 L.Ed.2d 583",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1147397
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "596"
        },
        {
          "page": "597"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/511/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "446 S.E.2d 71",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Bryant II"
        },
        {
          "page": "76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2550995
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "Bryant II"
        },
        {
          "page": "306-07"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/337/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "434 S.E.2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 N.C. App. 861",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524459
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/111/0861-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 6496,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.724,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.24423412330216934
    },
    "sha256": "15b28a10c5f726a7bd9e302af0593c86c1f945e520c9e7519657bea7acf1a0ca",
    "simhash": "1:9d47e53b475ba5d2",
    "word_count": 1074
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:09:59.579385+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY STEVEN WILLIAMS, Defendant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOHNSON, Judge.\nThe instant case has been remanded to our Court for reconsideration in light of our Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in State v. Bryant, 337 N.C. 298, 446 S.E.2d 71 (1994) (Bryant II). Initially, this opinion was reported at 111 N.C. App. 861, 434 S.E.2d 238 (1993). A brief review of the facts reveals the following:\nDefendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, in violation of North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 14-32(a) (1986). The first trial resulted in a mistrial when the jury was unable to reach an unanimous verdict. Evidence at the second trial revealed that defendant had marital problems which led to his wife threatening to leave defendant. Defendant, while drinking, told his wife that he would kill her if she left with the children. On the evening of 10 September 1990, defendant pointed the gun at his wife\u2019s face and pulled the trigger. Although defendant offered no evidence, he asserted through cross-examination of the investigating detective that it was an accident because he thought the gun\u2019s safety was on. The jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury in violation of North Carolina General Statutes \u00a7 14-32(b). Defendant appealed.\nOn appeal, this Court found that the trial court\u2019s instruction on reasonable doubt violated the Due Process Clause, and thus, was reversible error. We now reconsider this matter in light of Bryant II.\nOur Supreme Court in Bryant II stated:\nthe [U.S. Supreme] Court in Victor [Victor v. Nebraska, 511 U.S. \u2014, 127 L.Ed.2d 583 (1994)] acknowledged the distinction drawn in Gage [Cage v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 29, 112 L.Ed.2d 339 (1990)] between \u201cmoral certainty\u201d and \u201cevidentiary certainty.\u201d Victor, 511 U.S. at\u2014 , 114 S.Ct. at 1248, 127 L.Ed.2d at 596. The Court stated, however, that in Cage, \u201cthe jurors were simply told that they had to be morally certain of the defendant\u2019s guilt; there was nothing else in the instruction to lend meaning to the phrase.\u201d Id. In Victor, the jury was explicitly told to base its conclusion on the evidence in the case, and there were other instructions which reinforced this message.\nLikewise, in the present case, the jury was instructed that a reasonable doubt existed \u201cif, after considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, the minds of the jurors are left in such condition that they cannot say they have an abiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d The jury was also instructed that a reasonable doubt is \u201ca sane, rational doubt arising out of the evidence or lack of evidence or from its deficiency\u201d and that it is \u201can honest substantial misgiving generated by the insufficiency of the proof.\u201d We therefore conclude that, under Victor, \u201cthere is no reasonable likelihood that the jury would have understood moral certainty to be disassociated from the evidence in the case.\u201d Victor, 511 U.S. at-, 114 S.Ct. at 1248, 127 L.Ed.2d at 597. Thus, on remand, we hold, contrary to our previous decision in this case, that there is no Cage error entitling defendant to a new trial. Id.\nBryant II, 337 N.C. at 306-07, 446 S.E.2d at 76.\nThe trial court in Bryant gave the following instructions, \u201cif, after considering, comparing and weighing all the evidence, the minds of the jurors are left in such condition that they cannot say they have an abiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant\u2019s guilt[,]\u201d and \u201ca sane, rational doubt arising out of the evidence or lack of evidence or from its deficiency\u201d and that it is \u201can honest substantial misgiving generated by the insufficiency of the proof.\u201d Likewise, in the case sub judice, the trial court made two references to \u201cmoral certainty.\u201d These references were \u201csatisfied to a moral certainty in the truth of the charge\u201d and \u201cabiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant\u2019s guilt.\u201d The court made one reference to \u201chonest substantial misgiving,\u201d i.e., \u201chonest substantial misgiving generated by the insuffiency of the proof.\u201d As the language used in the instant case is similar to that used by the Supreme Court in Bryant II, there is no Cage or Montgomery error which would entitle defendant to a new trial.\nAccordingly, the trial court\u2019s instructions were without error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge GREENE concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOHNSON, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Gosten, for the State.",
      "Hux, Livermon & Armstrong, by James S. Livermon, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff v. ROY STEVEN WILLIAMS, Defendant\nNo. COA92-134\n(Filed 18 July 1995)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 762 (NCI4th)\u2014 moral certainty \u2014 honest substantial misgiving \u2014 instructions not violative of Due Process Clause\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction on reasonable doubt did not violate the Due Process Clause where the court in instructing on the burden of proof made two references to \u201cmoral certainty,\u201d i.e., \u201csatisfied to a moral certainty in the truth of the charge\u201d and \u201cabiding faith to a moral certainty in the defendant\u2019s guilt,\u201d and one reference to \u201chonest substantial misgiving,\u201d i.e., \u201chonest substantial misgiving generated by the insufficiency of the proof.\u201d\nAm Jur 2d, Trial \u00a7 1385.\nAppeal by defendant from judgment entered 1 July 1991 by Judge William C. Griffin, Jr. in Halifax County Superior Court. This case was originally heard in the Court of Appeals 3 March 1993. An opinion was issued 18 May 1993. State v. Williams, 110 N.C. App. 306, 429 S.E.2d 413 (1993). Upon discretionary review granted by the Supreme Court and by order dated 29 July 1993, the Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of the United States Supreme Court\u2019s 1 June 1993 opinion in Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. \u25a0 \u2014 \u2022, 124 L. Ed. 2d 182 (1993). State v. Williams, 334 N.C. 438, 433 S.E.2d 184 (1993).\nUpon reconsideration by the Court of Appeals, this Court issued an opinion filed 7 September 1993 superseding its previous opinion. State v. Williams, 111 N.C. App. 861, 434 S.E.2d 238 (1993). Again, the Supreme Court granted discretionary review and by order dated 29 July 1994, vacated this Court\u2019s opinion and again remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration. However, it was remanded in light of the Supreme Court\u2019s opinion in State v. Bryant, 337 N.C. 298, 446 S.E.2d 71 (1994). State v. Williams, 336 N.C. 777, 447 S.E.2d 435 (1994).\nThis opinion supersedes our previous opinion in this case.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Special Deputy Attorney General T. Buie Gosten, for the State.\nHux, Livermon & Armstrong, by James S. Livermon, Jr., for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0601-01",
  "first_page_order": 635,
  "last_page_order": 637
}
