{ "id": 8555887, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE HUFFMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Huffman", "decision_date": "1974-04-17", "docket_number": "No. 7427SC97", "first_page": "331", "last_page": "332", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "21 N.C. App. 331" } ], "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": "119 S.E. 2d 165", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626399 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/254/0380-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 302, "char_count": 4243, "ocr_confidence": 0.577, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7531058760568666 }, "sha256": "03a742aa80724504f882761a85ba784290b3188e3502edb4f1a748b4543c00dc", "simhash": "1:cf6de8b7766d83c1", "word_count": 693 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE HUFFMAN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThere was ample evidence to justify submitting this case to the jury and the trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit.\nDefendant assigns error to several portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury. First, defendant contends that the trial court, in recapitulating Opal Hicks\u2019s testimony, expressed an opinion about a critical fact. Comparing the evidence with this portion of the charge, however, it is clear that the trial court accurately recounted her testimony and nothing more. Next, defendant contends that the trial court inadequately charged the jury concerning (1) the bearing of Barrett\u2019s reputation as a violent and fighting man on the defendant\u2019s reasonable apprehension of death or great bodily harm at the time Barrett allegedly attacked him and (2) the law of self-defense and its application to the facts of the case. Reading the instruction as a whole and taking the portions of the charge complained of in their proper context, we find no prejudicial error. Considering the charge as a whole, the jury was adequately apprised as to the law arising on the evidence in this case, particularly as it related to defendant\u2019s contention that he shot only in self-defense.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury, as defendant requested, that they \u201cshould scrutinize and look carefully into the testimony of Opal Lee Hicks.\u201d In this connection, however, Hicks was not an accomplice, though she was charged as being an accessory after the fact. An accessory after the fact is not considered as an accomplice, State v. Bailey, 254 N.C. 380, 119 S.E. 2d 165, and there was no error in the court\u2019s failure to give the requested instruction.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgcm by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey for the State.", "William G. Holland for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE HUFFMAN\nNo. 7427SC97\n(Filed 17 April 1974)\n1. Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 26, 28\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 self-defense \u2014 instructions proper\nIn a prosecution for second degree murder, the trial court\u2019s instruction was proper where it accurately recounted a witness\u2019s testimony and adequately apprised the jury as to the law arising on the evidence in the case, particularly as it related to defendant\u2019s contention that he shot deceased only in self-defense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 117; Homicide \u00a7 26\u2014 testimony of accessory after the fact \u2014 request for instructions \u2014 denial proper\nTrial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury, as defendant requested, that they \u201cshould scrutinize and look carefully into the testimony\u201d of a witness who was an accessory after the fact but not an accomplice to the crime charged.\nAppeal by defendant from Friday, Judge, 30 July 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County.\nDefendant was indicted for the murder of Loyd Anderson Barrett. Upon arraignment, the State elected to try defendant for second-degree murder, to which he pled not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence showed: On the night of 12 May 1973 defendant, his girl friend, Opal Hicks, Barrett, and one Humphries were together in Humphries\u2019s trailer in Ranlo Trailer Park. About 4:30 a.m., defendant, Barrett and Humphries left to visit a nearby trailer park. They took a .22 caliber rifle with them, About fifteen minutes later, Opal Hicks, who had remained in the trailer, heard three shots. On opening the trailer door, she saw defendant, with the rifle in hand, standing on the trailer steps. Barrett, breathing heavily, was leaning against the fender of a car parked about ten feet away. Defendant said: \u201cI shot him. He kept coming at me.\u201d Shortly thereafter, an investigating officer found Barrett\u2019s corpse, with a knife in its left hand, lying beside the car. A subsequent autopsy revealed that Barrett died as a result of three .22 caliber gunshot wounds in his chest.\nDefendant testified that he shot Barrett only after Barrett, large, drunk, and belligerent, and who had previously threatened him, attacked him with a knife.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder, and judgment was entered sentencing defendant to prison for not less than 12 nor more than 15 years.\nAttorney General Robert Morgcm by Assistant Attorney General Charles M. Hensey for the State.\nWilliam G. Holland for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0331-01", "first_page_order": 359, "last_page_order": 360 }