{
  "id": 8555647,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLARD BUCK MITCHUM",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mitchum",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 7320SC85",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "374",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 372"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 279,
    "char_count": 3537,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.543,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531124401461243
    },
    "sha256": "0da9a2107a40b465b36d0b0860e1d643266dc1a78540d3bce5fc5915e455cb71",
    "simhash": "1:e29a02554b7f63f3",
    "word_count": 619
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLARD BUCK MITCHUM"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s three assignments of error relate to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury.\nFirst, based on two specific exceptions to the instructions to the jury, defendant contends \u201cthe Judge made statements that might have been construed by a jury as the trial Judge\u2019s opinion on the matter.\u201d\nWhile the instructions complained of might have been better stated, no prejudicial error is made to appear.\nBy his second assignment of error, defendant contends the court failed to instruct the jury that malice is a constituent element of second degree murder.\nWhen the charge is considered contextually, it is clear that the judge correctly defined second degree murder and all of its constituent elements.\nThe errors assigned are not sustained. Defendant\u2019s trial in. Superior Court was free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney C. Diederick Heidgerd for the State.",
      "Benny S. Shar-pe for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLARD BUCK MITCHUM\nNo. 7320SC85\n(Filed 14 February 1973)\nHomicide \u00a7 26 \u2014 second degree murder \u2014 instructions\nThe trial judge\u2019s charge to the jury in a second degree murder case contained no improper expression of opinion and fully and correctly defined second degree murder and all of its constituent elements.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, Judge, 4 September 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Richmond County.\nDefendant, Willard Buck Mitchum, was charged in an indictment, proper in form, with the murder of Betty Thomas Shaw. Upon defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the State offered evidence tending to show that on 24 May 1972, James Martin Hough and the deceased Betty Thomas Shaw, returned from a date to the home of deceased at about 11:30 p.m. Upon entering the home, \u201cMr. Mitchum, the defendant, came from the living room area and started cutting the deceased. He slit the left side of her neck and she fell to the floor and he started stabbing her.\u201d An autopsy disclosed 21 stab wounds in deceased\u2019s body and indicated that death resulted from massive internal hemorrhage caused by penetration of the heart and lungs. Defendant stated to Hough, \u201cYou son of a bitch, she\u2019s my woman.\u201d Then he cut Hough with a knife.\nDefendant testified that he loved the deceased and had been dating her for between one and two years. On 24 May 1972, he received a telephone call from the deceased breaking their date for that night because \u201c[s]he said she was not feeling well.\u201d Defendant telephoned the home of deceased at 10:00 p.m. When she did not answer, he became concerned for her welfare and asked a friend to drive him to her home. Defendant testified:\n\u201cI was sitting on the porch when Mrs. Shaw and Mr. Hough drove up. I told Mrs. Shaw that I wanted to talk with her and that after I talked with her I would get a cab and leave. She invited me in. Mr. Hough went in also. We went into the kitchen area. I was going to get a beer and the next thing I knew Mr. Hough and I were fighting and tussling. Mrs. Shaw tried to interfere and she got cut in the neck. I ran to her and grabbed her and tried to see if she would talk to me. Mr. Hough was right in the middle of the kitchen.\u201d\nDefendant stated:\n\u201cI can\u2019t explain how Betty Thomas Shaw got stabbed 21 times. When I left her and Mr. Hough she was still on the floor. The only thing I noticed is that she was cut in the neck.\u201d\nFrom a judgment imposing a prison sentence of thirty years entered on a verdict of second degree murder, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan and Associate Attorney C. Diederick Heidgerd for the State.\nBenny S. Shar-pe for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 396,
  "last_page_order": 398
}