{
  "id": 8553019,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GORDON BROADNAX",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Broadnax",
  "decision_date": "1971-12-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 7117SC762",
  "first_page": "319",
  "last_page": "323",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 319"
    }
  ],
  "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": "127 S.E. 2d 774",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 44",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559381
      ],
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0044-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 449,
    "char_count": 8395,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4388555085643989
    },
    "sha256": "b6d65d4e45bb7ea2718566c9a0ef8f37709757fae2d7d1ec86d56920565c9628",
    "simhash": "1:8b5ff128173a3bc9",
    "word_count": 1509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:15.024983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GORDON BROADNAX"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence to be submitted to the jury. No motions for dismissal as of nonsuit were made at the trial, but by this assignment defendant requests that the sufficiency of the evidence be considered on appeal under the provisions of G.S. 15-173.1. He does not bring forward this assignment of error and argue it in his brief. It is, therefore, deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina.\nBy the next assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial tribunal committed prejudicial error in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense. We agree.\nThe evidence for the State tends to show that the prosecuting witness, Samuel P. Roberts (Roberts), went to defendant\u2019s home to purchase a drink of whiskey about 10:30 p.m. He and two friends were on their way to a dance. They stayed at defendant\u2019s home about 30 minutes, left, and went on. to Eden where the dance was supposed to be. When they arrived, the place was closed, and nothing was going on. They \u201cfooled around\u201d a while and headed back toward Reidsville. They saw the lights were still on at defendant\u2019s house, and Roberts suggested that they stop so he could get another drink. He had had nothing to drink since the drink he purchased from defendant earlier in the evening. The time of the second visit was approximately 2:00 a.m. Roberts went in the house alone. Defendant and his wife were there and one Peter McGee who was lying on the couch. Roberts ordered another dollar drink and gave defendant a five dollar bill. Defendant contended he did not owe Roberts any change and an argument ensued. Defendant went through a door, came back and stuck a single barrel shotgun through the door and shot Roberts in the left leg. Defendant then ran out from behind the door, called Roberts a dirty name, raised the gun over his head saying \u201cI am going to finish killing you.\u201d Roberts grabbed the gun and shoved defendant in the stomach and hit him on the head. When he started to hit defendant again, defendant\u2019s wife hollered, so Roberts threw the gun down. Defendant then came up and hit Roberts in the head with a whiskey bottle. Roberts felt himself \u201cgiving out\u201d so he left the house and went to the car. Roberts had no weapon of any sort that night.\nRoberts\u2019 companion, Gaston, corroborated Roberts\u2019 testimony adding that he did not go in defendant\u2019s house with Roberts on the second visit but did go in after a short while to see what was detaining him. When he walked in, defendant and Roberts were arguing over some money. Defendant went through the kitchen to the living room and came around through another door \u201cand I saw the door cracking open and I told Sammy to watch out, after about that time he shot him.\u201d Gaston testified that Roberts did not have anything in his hands.\nThe defendant and his wife testified. Their evidence tended to show the following: On the night in question defendant was having a fish fry. Shortly after 11:00 p.m. Roberts and his friends came by. The invited guests were eating fish and having a good time. Roberts was not invited. Defendant told him he could come in if he would act like other people. Roberts was not in the house five minutes before he wanted to pick a fight with a guest over two dollars he said the guest owed him. Defendant told Roberts that if the guest owed him two dollars, he, defendant, would give it to Roberts. Whereupon Roberts took out a \u201chawk bill\u201d knif\u00e9 and the guest said he would leave rather than get in trouble. Whereupon the guest went to his car. Roberts followed him, the guest left. Defendant told Roberts to go away and \u201cdon\u2019t come back.\u201d Shortly after 2:00 a.m. Roberts returned. He and \u201cthe other boy\u201d came in. When defendant asked what he wanted Roberts just stood there \u201clooking at me like he was going through me.\u201d Defendant told him to get out. \u201cHe kept looking at me like he was going to do something to me and I kept raising my voice and telling him to get out of my house.\u201d Defendant did not sell him any liquor. Roberts did not leave and defendant went back to the bedroom and got the shotgun. He was standing about four feet from Roberts. He cocked the gun and told Roberts two or three times to get out. \u201cHe put his hands in his pocket like he was drawing to cut me or something and that is why I shot him. He made a move toward me, that is when I shot him. I did not try to kill him, but I wanted him to know that I would. After I shot him, he still would not get out and I did not have but the one shell in the gun and it was a good thing. So I said I will knock you out of the door if you don\u2019t get out and that is when we got to shuffling with it and he hit me on the head with it after he took it away from me ...\u201d\nDefendant contends that the court should have charged the jury on self-defense. We think this assignment of error is a valid one.\nThe facts are not dissimilar to those in State v. Lee, 258 N.C. 44, 127 S.E. 2d 774 (1962). There the evidence for the State was that the prosecuting witness went in defendant\u2019s store to buy some ice cream. While a clerk was dipping up the ice cream, defendant, owner of the store, came up and struck the prosecuting witness on the head with a stick saying, \u201cI told you to stay out of here.\u201d The defendant\u2019s evidence was that the prosecuting witness came in the store about midnight and wanted to buy some beer. Defendant told him it was after hours and he could not sell him beer. Defendant told him this at least twice but prosecuting witness replied \u201cI am going to have some beer\u201d and was coming around the counter. \u201cHe acted as if he was coming around the counter toward me when I hit him. . . . The reason I hit him is because I wouldn\u2019t sell him beer, and I thought he was coming on me, and I did it to protect myself.\u201d There the court held the evidence sufficient to require a charge on self-defense.\nThe evidence here is even stronger. Here defendant\u2019s evidence would permit a jury to find that after two o\u2019clock in the morning, Roberts went to defendant\u2019s home; refused to answer when asked what he wanted but glared at defendant menacingly. When he refused to leave, defendant got his shotgun, cocked it and ordered Roberts out. Roberts refused to leave but put his hand in his pocket and began advancing on defendant. Earlier in the evening, Roberts had been involved in an argument with a guest of defendant\u2019s and had displayed a \u201chawk bill\u201d knife.\nThe evidence is sufficient to entitle defendant to have his plea of self-defense passed upon by the jury under proper instructions by the court.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error are also directed to the charge of the court. Since there must be a new trial, there is no need to discuss them.\nNew trial.\nJudges Campbell and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Hafer, for the State.",
      "Gwyn, Gwyn and Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GORDON BROADNAX\nNo. 7117SC762\n(Filed 29 December 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 166\u2014 abandonment of assignment of error\nAn assignment of error not brought forward and argued in the brief is deemed abandoned. Court of Appeals Rule No. 28.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014 felonious assault \u2014 self-defense\nIn a prosecution for felonious assault, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on self-defense where defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the assault victim went to defendant\u2019s home at 2:00 a.m. and refused to answer when asked what he wanted but glared menacingly at defendant, that when the victim refused to leave defendant got his shotgun and ordered him to leave, that the victim put his hand in his pocket and began advancing on defendant, that defendant shot him, and that the victim had been involved in an argument with a guest of defendant\u2019s earlier in the evening and had displayed a \u201chawk bill\u201d knife.\nAppeal by defendant from Seay, Judge, 21 June 1971 Criminal Session, Superior Court of Rockingham County.\nDefendant was charged with assault with a deadly weapon with felonious intent to kill, inflicting serious injuries, not resulting in death. He entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon (a firearm) inflicting serious bodily injury. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Hafer, for the State.\nGwyn, Gwyn and Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0319-01",
  "first_page_order": 343,
  "last_page_order": 347
}