{ "id": 8547651, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COLUMBUS SHARPE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sharpe", "decision_date": "1973-05-09", "docket_number": "No. 737SC173", "first_page": "136", "last_page": "138", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "18 N.C. App. 136" } ], "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": "46 S.E. 2d 318", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 522", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627137 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0522-01" ] }, { "cite": "31 S.E. 2d 857", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 622", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611127 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0622-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S.E. 2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 44", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559381 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0044-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 359, "char_count": 5298, "ocr_confidence": 0.51, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.910444093458357e-08, "percentile": 0.4611793969455362 }, "sha256": "7611560b0f76df51dc3402469acd62890f816c8208a5fa80c6425e19270fd3fd", "simhash": "1:045369003f1a99bf", "word_count": 917 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COLUMBUS SHARPE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s assignments of error based on the denial of his motions for nonsuit are without merit.\nDefendant brings forward numerous other assignments of error. We will discuss only the two we consider so prejudicial as to require a new trial.\nDefendant operated a place called Willoughby\u2019s. It was described as a place to have a good time. There was a pool table and a piccolo. The State offered evidence which would have permitted a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree, manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. The defendant offered evidence, which he contended, tended to show that he killed in self-defense. The credibility of the evidence is, of course, for the jury. Defendant offered evidence to the effect that, during an interval while he was away from his place of business, deceased had abused the person left in charge of the business, forced his way behind the counter and taken a quarter from the cash register. Defendant returned to the premises and went behind the counter. Robert, a brother of deceased, began to curse and attempted to get behind the counter to defendant. Defendant was scared. Robert told defendant he was going to kill him just as soon as he could get back there. Deceased said \u201cdamn right.\u201d Deceased had a pool stick in his hand. Friends of deceased were with them. Defendant kept telling them to get back. Defendant was afraid. He picked up his rifle. Deceased acted like he was trying to hit defendant with the pool stick. There were others with sticks. \u201cThey\u201d pushed a screen back on defendant and \u201cI fell back and started shooting.\u201d Defendant shot, but did not kill, Robert and then shot deceased. After cross-examination by the solicitor, the court undertook to cross-examine defendant. The court\u2019s interrogation takes up several pages of the record on appeal. Although it may well be that some of the court\u2019s questions were for legitimate clarification, the prejudice to defendant and the error in the following exchange between the court and the defendant is apparent.\n\u201cQ. So after you shot Robert you just turned around to your left and shot Willie?\nA. No. He come up under there with a pool stick and that\u2019s when I must have shot him. I didn\u2019t have any way to get out and I was scared and didn\u2019t know what to do. I knew I couldn\u2019t fight five or six guys in there and they were going to kill me for nothing.\nQ. Well, let\u2019s see. Jimmy Taylor, William Taylor, Linwood Taylor, Terry Joyner and J. C. Horne, were in there with you, weren\u2019t they?\nA. Yes.\nCourt: So there were just about as many people with you as there were with the Joneses, weren\u2019t there?\nA. Just about.\u201d\nDuring the course of his charge to the jury the court, without further amplification, injected the following.\n\u201cThe defendant, Columbus Sharpe, has testified. He says that he is 29 years of age, that he is the operator of this store; that he rents it or leases it from someone, and that he has the right to be upon the premises. But the court charges you that a person\u2019s- place of business is considerably different from his home. So if you have heard some law or know of some law about the right to protect your home as a castle, you will disregard that, as that does-not apply as far as the operation of a business is concerned. ...\u201d\nAlthough His Honor\u2019s meaning is not clear to us, the possibility of prejudice to the defendant from this, remark, absent additional and proper instructions as to defendant\u2019s duty, or lack of duty, to retreat cannot be ignored. Moreover, \u201cno duty to retreat devolves upon a person who is assailed, without any fault of his own, in his home or place of business or on his premises.\u201d State v. Lee, 258 N.C. 44, 127 S.E. 2d 774. (Emphasis supplied.) See also State v. Pennell, 224 N.C. 622, 31 S.E. 2d 857. State v. Grant, 228 N.C. 522, 46 S.E. 2d 318.\nNew trial.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "VAUGHN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Charles M. Hensey, Assistant Attorney General for the State.", "Joel K. Bourne for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. COLUMBUS SHARPE\nNo. 737SC173\n(Filed 9 May 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 questioning of defendant by trial court \u2014 prejudicial error\nIn this homicide prosecution wherein defendant contended he shot deceased in self-defense while being assaulted by deceased, his brother and some of his friends, the trial court committed prejudicial error in questioning defendant as to whether there were about as many people with him as there were with deceased and his brother.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 28\u2014 self-defense \u2014 place of business \u2014 instructions\nIn this homicide prosecution wherein defendant claimed self-defense, the trial court erred in instructing the jury that \u201ca person\u2019s place of business is considerably different from his home. So if you have heard some law or know of some law about the right to protect your home as a castle, you will disregard that, as that does not apply as far as the operation of a business is concerned.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Martin (Perry), Judge, 7 August 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Edgecombe County.\nDefendant was placed on trial for murder in the second degree and was convicted of involuntary manslaughter as a result of the fatal shooting of one Willie Ray Jones. Judgment imposing a prison sentence of ten years was entered.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Charles M. Hensey, Assistant Attorney General for the State.\nJoel K. Bourne for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0136-01", "first_page_order": 160, "last_page_order": 162 }