{
  "id": 8547733,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD GLENN CREDLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Credle",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 732SC148",
  "first_page": "142",
  "last_page": "143",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 142"
    }
  ],
  "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": "84 S.E. 2d 545",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8604316
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 626",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 579",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553909
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0579-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 203,
    "char_count": 2728,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.494,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20584443340132957
    },
    "sha256": "5ab9f7e94b34377f3f04afb1188fc6732187ca3c17cbd90a4d2df8b261e5ce24",
    "simhash": "1:d132812847391759",
    "word_count": 458
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD GLENN CREDLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PAEKEE, Judge.\nThe sole assignment of error is directed to the court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury that involuntary manslaughter was one of their possible verdicts. In this there was no error. All of the evidence showed that defendant took a pistol from his back pocket and shot his victim twice after the defendant, a customer, had gotten into a dispute with the victim, a storekeeper, during the course of which the victim ordered defendant out of his store, advanced upon defendant, and hit him with a \u201cbilly club.\u201d Defendant testified:\n\u201cJohn Alva Smith hit me with the billy club before I shot him the first time. After I shot him the first time, I backed off, then he hit me again. And I shot him the second time after he hit me. I then turned around and ran, because I was scared.\u201d\nNone of the evidence suggests that the two shots fired by defendant were fired involuntarily or by reason of culpable negligence. Involuntary manslaughter was therefore not involved. State v. Johnson, 8 N.C. App. 579, 174 S.E. 2d 626. \u201cThe necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed.\u201d State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 84 S.E. 2d 545. Here, there was no such evidence.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PAEKEE, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General-Claude W. Harris for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RONALD GLENN CREDLE\nNo. 732SC148\n(Filed 9 May 1973)\nHomicide \u00a7 30\u2014 instructions on involuntary manslaughter not required The trial court in a homicide case did not err in failing to instruct the jury that involuntary manslaughter was one of their possible verdicts where all the evidence tended to show that defendant took a pistol from his back pocket and shot the victim twice after defendant, a customer, had gotten into a dispute with the victim, a storekeeper, during the course of which the victim ordered defendant out of his store, advanced upon defendant, and hit him with a billy club, there being no evidence suggesting that defendant fired the two shots involuntarily or by reason of culpable negligence.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge, 21 August 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Beaufort County.\nDefendant was indicted for first-degree murder. At the close of the State\u2019s evidene\u00e9 the court allowed motion for non-s\u00fcit as to the charge of first-degree murder. The case was submitted to the jury on charges of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter. The jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From sentence imposed, defendant appealed. :\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Assistant Attorney General-Claude W. Harris for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0142-01",
  "first_page_order": 166,
  "last_page_order": 167
}