{
  "id": 8550322,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOMEZELLE BENTHALL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Benthall",
  "decision_date": "1973-12-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 7315SC287",
  "first_page": "167",
  "last_page": "169",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 167"
    }
  ],
  "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": 311,
    "char_count": 4513,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.594,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.856319230494445e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30581300299747205
    },
    "sha256": "045e5fc6f6337861b8ef8c2b262099098929de156d0d2132f8eee933178f3939",
    "simhash": "1:16f73af0de02b7d4",
    "word_count": 761
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:39:00.958655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Mor\u00e9is concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOMEZELLE BENTHALL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motions for nonsuit. There was substantial evidence of every element of the crime charged.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in overruling his objections to admission of testimony as to defendant\u2019s actions toward the prosecutrix both prior and subsequent to the occurrence which gave rise to the charge in the present case. In this connection the prosecutrix testified that defendant had shot her on previous occasions and that the shooting in this case was the fifth occasion that he had shot her. There was no error in admitting this evidence. It was relevant to show that defendant shot the prosecutrix intentionally rather than accidentally. 1 Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 92.\nThe prosecutrix and her son also testified over defendant\u2019s objections to contacts the defendant had made with them subsequent to the shooting. The testimony concerning what was said or done on these occasions could not reasonably be considered as prejudicial to defendant and its admission resulted in no prejudicial error.\nFinally, defendant contends that the court committed error in its charge to the jury when restating the contentions of the State to the jury. However, we have reviewed the charge as a whole and are of the opinion that prejudicial error has not been shown.\nDefendant has had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Mor\u00e9is concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin for the State.",
      "Thomas D. Higgins III for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HOMEZELLE BENTHALL\nNo. 7315SC287\n(Filed 12 December 1973)\n1. Assault and Battery \u00a7 13\u2014 evidence that defendant shot victim on other occasions\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries, testimony by the prosecutrix that defendant had shot her on four previous occasions was competent to show that defendant shot the prosecutrix intentionally rather than accidentally as he contended.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 13\u2014 defendant\u2019s contacts with victim subsequent to shooting\nIn a felonious assault prosecution, testimony by the prosecutrix and her son concerning contacts defendant had made with them subsequent to the shooting did not constitute prejudicial error.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge, 14 September 1972 Session of Superior Court held in Orange County.\nBy indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with felonious assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injuries. He pled not guilty.\nThe prosecuting witness, Martha Louise Gaddis, testified in substance to the following: She had known the defendant for two years and had dated him until two months prior to this charge. On the night in question defendant came to her home in Chapel Hill and tried to borrow money from her. When she refused, he began cursing, so she asked him to leave. Defendant left but a short time later returned, broke the glass in the front door, and came in, shooting and yelling \u201cI am going to kill you.\u201d Defendant had a pistol and fired one shot outside the house and three shots inside. Two shots hit her, one passing through her lungs and one by her heart. Mrs. Gaddis was taken to the hospital, where she remained for almost three weeks, a part of that time in intensive care. Joe Gaddis, the twenty-four-year-old son of the prosecuting witness, who was in the house at the time of the shooting, also testified as a witness for the State and corroborated his mother\u2019s testimony.\nDefendant testified in substance to the following: On the night in question, Mrs. Gaddis was drinking heavily and got \u201cpretty drunk.\u201d He walked to the front door and started out. She asked him where he was going, and when he told her he was going out on the porch, she called him a \u201cdamn liar\u201d and shot him, the bullet hitting his left hand. As she was trying to shoot again, he grabbed her and pressed both of her hands up to her chest, and the gun went off and hit her. Joe Gaddis jumped up and got a shotgun. Defendant ran out the back door, and as he did so, Joe Gaddis shot him and knocked him into the street. Defendant got up and went to Durham.\nThe jury found defendant guilty as charged. Defendant was sentenced to prison for a term of not less than seven nor more than ten years. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Guy A. Hamlin for the State.\nThomas D. Higgins III for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0167-01",
  "first_page_order": 195,
  "last_page_order": 197
}