{ "id": 8551752, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY LEE HUNT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hunt", "decision_date": "1971-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 7116SC767", "first_page": "218", "last_page": "220", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "13 N.C. App. 218" } ], "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": "147 S.E. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558414 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0090-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 263, "char_count": 4154, "ocr_confidence": 0.519, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2059233955338709 }, "sha256": "451ce3b66964b6020b949e2d72463028965d7b3ad909a3ad44c60b7c7c883516", "simhash": "1:f7829022eca516d9", "word_count": 724 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY LEE HUNT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "CAMPBELL, Judge.\nThe defendant \u00e1ssigns as the sole error of the trial tribunal a statement included in the charge to the jury.\nIn recapitulating the State\u2019s evidence, the judge stated:\n\u201cThat the shotgun and pistol which were taken in Mr. Prevatte\u2019s store are the same guns held by the men who came in his store.\u201d\nThe defendant contends that when the judge stated, \u201c[t]hat the shotgun and pistol which were taken in Mr. Prevatte\u2019s store are the same guns held by the men who came in his store,\u201d he was stating a material fact not in evidence and therefore committing prejudicial error. The defendant argues that this sentence should be interpreted to mean that a shotgun and a pistol were taken from Mr. Prevatte\u2019s store and that there is no evidence of that fact. The defendant argues that the judge was in effect instructing the jury that a shotgun was stolen from the store.\nThe defendant\u2019s interpretation of the judge\u2019s charge is strained, at the least. We cannot accept it.\nIn examining the trial court\u2019s charge, we must read it as a whole, in the same connected way that it was given to the jury. State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E. 2d 548 (1966).\nThe word \u201ctake\u201d and the word \u201cin\u201d when used alone are susceptible of many meanings and. shades of meaning. See Webster\u2019s Third New International Dictionary (1968). The context is determinative of the precise meaning conveyed in a given case. In examining the entire charge, we find that the judge stated that, \u201cMr. Prevatte heard glass break, saw a man with a pistol\u201d and, \u201c [t] hat another man came in, had a shotgun in his hand.\u201d Both of these statements precede that part of the instruction which the defendant assigns as error. The judge also charged that a Smith and Wesson pistol and an amount of money were stolen from the store. No mention was made of any shotgun being stolen.\nIn light of the judge\u2019s instruction that the men entered with weapons and that only a pistol and cash were stolen, we can see no way in which a jury could have inferred that a shotgun had been stolen.\nThe clear meaning of the words in question is that the robbers carried a shotgun and pistol into the store to commit their crime. These two weapons were introduced in evidence after proper identification. There is ample evidence to support this statement in the charge of the judge.\nAffirmed.\nJudges Morris and Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "CAMPBELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney General Charles A. Lloyd for the State.", "Neill A. Jennings, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY LEE HUNT\nNo. 7116SC767\n(Filed 15 December 1971)\nRobbery \u00a7 5\u2014 instructions \u2014 weapons carried by the robbers\nIn this armed robbery prosecution, statement made by the court during recapitulation of the State\u2019s evidence that \u201cthe shotgun and pistol which were taken in Mr. Prevatte\u2019s store are the same guns held by the men who came in his store\u201d did not constitute an instruction that a shotgun and pistol were stolen from the store, the clear meaning of the statement being that the robbers carried a shotgun and pistol into the store to commit the robbery.\nON certiorari from Canaday, Judge, March 1971 Session of Robeson Superior Court.\n' The defendant was tried on three indictments charging him and two others with armed robbery.\nAt the trial, the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 27 November 1970 Mr. Henry Prevatte was closing his filling station and grocery store at approximately 8:20 p.m.; that there were two other men in the store with him; that three men entered the store and informed him that \u201c[t]his is a holdup\u201d; that one of the men carried a shotgun and another had a pistol; that one of the men was the defendant, Henry Lee Hunt; and that the three men took with them Mr. Prevatte\u2019s .32 caliber pistol, money from the cash register and also money from Mr. Prevatte and from each of the two men in the store.\nThe defendant introduced evidence tending to establish an alibi.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty on all three indictments as to defendant Henry Lee Hunt. Judgment was entered on each indictment imposing prison sentences.\nFrom this verdict and judgment, the defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney General Charles A. Lloyd for the State.\nNeill A. Jennings, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0218-01", "first_page_order": 242, "last_page_order": 244 }