{
  "id": 8550795,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK STARNES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Starnes",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7211SC716",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "360",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 357"
    }
  ],
  "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": "162 S.E. 2d 495",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559668
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0186-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 419,
    "char_count": 6852,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.498,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2087053531992334e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7762276874057136
    },
    "sha256": "03cd3f0999cff402079099c813c3fa1499af3cf61a98639574ba2bb91c47ddb1",
    "simhash": "1:c2e03001538449d3",
    "word_count": 1172
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK STARNES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nEvidence concerning defendant\u2019s in-custody statements to the officers was admitted only after the trial court, on the basis of evidence presented at a voir dire examination, had determined that defendant\u2019s statements had been freely and voluntarily made after defendant had been fully advised of his constitutional rights. The evidence presented at the voir dire examination fully supports the trial court\u2019s findings and determination, and on this appeal the appellant does not further contest the admissibility of his in-custody statements.\nThe deputy sheriff who investigated the shooting was permitted to testify, over defendant\u2019s objections, that in his opinion the victim\u2019s death was caused by the gunshot wound in his neck. Appellant assigns this ruling as prejudicial error. In this contention we find no merit. Before expressing this opinion, the witness had described to the jury in some detail the position in which he had found the deceased\u2019s body and the nature and extent of the wound which he observed in the deceased\u2019s neck. It did not require a medical expert to conclude that the wounds described had caused the death. Any intelligent person who examined the body could have testified to that fact. \u201cIn any event, where the injuries are of such a character that any person of ordinary intelligence would know that they caused the death, the witness\u2019 expressed opinion cannot be held for prejudicial error.\u201d State v. Howard, 274 N.C. 186, 162 S.E. 2d 495.\nWe also find appellant\u2019s remaining assignments of error without merit. Defendant\u2019s motions for nonsuit were properly overruled as there was ample evidence to require submission of the case to the jury, and his contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on his \u201cright to protect his home\u201d is without merit as no such issue arose on the evidence. The court\u2019s charge to the jury considered in its entirety was free from prejudicial error. In defendant\u2019s trial and in the judgment appealed from we find\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the State.",
      "Robert A. Spence for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FRANK STARNES\nNo. 7211SC716\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 50; Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 nonexpert witness \u2014 opinion as to cause of death admissible\nAn opinion given by the officer who investigated the shooting as to cause of death of the victim was properly admitted in a second degree murder trial where the gunshot wounds as described by the officer were of such a character that any person of ordinary intelligence would know that they caused the death.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 28 \u2014 second degree murder \u2014 right of defendant to protect home \u2014 instructions proper\nIn a prosecution for second degree murder the trial court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury on defendant\u2019s \u201cright to protect his home\u201d did not constitute error where no such issue arose on the evidence.\nAppeal' by defendant from Martin (Robert M.), Judge, June 1972 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in JOHNSTON County.\nDefendant was indicted for the first-degree murder of Larry Darrell Bryant. The solicitor announced that the State would not prosecute defendant for first-degree murder but only for second-degree murder or manslaughter as the evidence might justify. Defendant pleaded not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence in substance showed the following: In May 1971 defendant lived as a boarder in the home of one Naomi Battle, renting one of the bedrooms in her four bedroom house. His landlady\u2019s 16-year-old daughter, Emma Frances Battle, also resided in the house. About 3:00 a.m. on 30 May 1971, Emma Frances and her boyfriend, 19-year-old Larry Bryant, were in the kitchen of her mother\u2019s home where, with her mother\u2019s permission, they were preparing to cook pork chops. Defendant, standing outside of the house, fired a shotgun through the kitchen window, striking Larry Bryant in the face and neck. Larry ran to Emma Frances\u2019s bedroom, where he fell face down on the floor, bleeding. A second shotgun blast came through the bedroom window, striking the bedpost and the side of the door. Naomi and Emma Frances Battle ran out on the front porch and observed defendant with his gun, standing in the path beside the house. Defendant said, \u201cThere is one more I am going to get.\u201d After making that statement, defendant ran away.\nThe deputy sheriff who investigated the shooting and who arrived at the Battle residence at approximately 3:45 a.m. on 30 May 1971, testified:\n\u201cI saw Larry Bryant. Upon entering the house at Naomi Battle\u2019s residence, I went in the front bedroom of the house which is in the north part of the house. The deceased, Larry Bryant, was lying face down on the floor beside the bed. Upon examining Larry Bryant I saw he had what appeared to be a gunshot wound in the left portion of his neck and there was a large amount of blood under the deceased on the floor. The gunshot wound was right in the middle of his neck, about one and one-half inch deep was cut out of his neck. The left side of his neck. About three inches long and about one and one-half inch deep, just gashed right out.\n\u201c. . . I contacted Larry Bryant\u2019s parents and ascertained from them which funeral home they wanted to get the deceased.\u201d\nDefendant was arrested by an S.B.I. agent in Monroe, N. C., on 2 March 1972. After being warned of his rights, defendant admitted that while standing outside the house he had fired the shots into the house but \u201cdidn\u2019t really know whether he shot Larry,\u201d that he had overheard Emma and Larry talking-in the kitchen and \u201cthought they were trying to get him,\u201d and \u201csince they were going to get him he should get them first.\u201d\nAfter the State rested its case, defendant testified in substance as follows:\nHe had had some difficulty with Larry Bryant regarding money which Larry had gotten from him. Earlier on the night of the shooting Naomi Battle had received a head injury for which she had been treated at the hospital. Defendant had been told that \u201csomebody had knocked Naomi in the head.\u201d When defendant got to the Battle house and while he was on the porch, he heard Emma Frances say, \u201cYou ought not to hit house and heard Emma Frances say, \u201cYou ought not to hit mother so hard.\u201d Defendant testified: \u201cI didn\u2019t know what they were up to so I figured I was going to shoot and maybe they would get out and wouldn\u2019t kill me. ... I shot into the house because I was afraid of him. He had my money from me. He wanted to kill me to keep from paying me my money. I didn\u2019t shoot at anybody. I didn\u2019t see anybody. I wanted to go in the house but I didn\u2019t know if they would knock me in the head when I went in the house.\u201d\nThe jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, and from judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General I. Beverly Lake, Jr., for the State.\nRobert A. Spence for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 384
}