{
  "id": 11306814,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELWOOD HAMMOCK",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hammock",
  "decision_date": "1974-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7413SC536",
  "first_page": "439",
  "last_page": "441",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 439"
    }
  ],
  "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": "162 S.E. 2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 N.C. App. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554000
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/1/0479-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 370,
    "char_count": 6797,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.3728075846420702e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7958865555482192
    },
    "sha256": "eec97d56017234e0300a632f14f358d1556d7538c794a0dbe79cef0b2aa495c6",
    "simhash": "1:de30b06ff7f396df",
    "word_count": 1164
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+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. ELWOOD HAMMOCK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to nonsuit the charge against defendant because the State made no showing that Deputy Edwards was acting under a valid capias. It seems to be defendant\u2019s contention that it was necessary for the State to offer the capias in evidence or satisfactory evidence of its contents.\nDeputy Edwards testified that he was given a capias to serve on defendant and that he went to Bessie\u2019s Package Store for the purpose of serving the capias. Capias is \u201cThe general name for several species of writs, the common characteristic of which is that they require the officer to take the body of the defendant into custody; they are writs of attachment or arrest.\u201d Black\u2019s Law Dictionary, 4th ed. Therefore, there was evidence that Deputy Edwards had in his possession an order to take defendant into custody. Also, the State\u2019s evidence tends to show that defendant was aware that the deputy was there to take him to jail. He told Assistant Chief Jones that he was not going to jail with the deputy. Defendant\u2019s own evidence tends to show that he knew the deputy was there in the performance of his duties. The only purpose for introduction of the capias itself into evidence would have been to establish the content of the capias. Such was not required in this case.\nDefendant argues as though he were convicted of resisting arrest. However, he was charged and convicted of assault with a firearm upon a law-enforcement officer while such officer was in the performance of his duties. The State\u2019s evidence tends to show: (1) that Deputy Edwards was a law-enforcement officer, and this was known to defendant; (2) that Deputy Edwards was performing or attempting to perform his duties as a law-enforcement officer, and this was known to defendant; and that defendant assaulted Deputy Edwards with a firearm. Even if it could be established that the capias was void, it would not justify defendant\u2019s assault upon Deputy Edwards. State v. Wright, 1 N.C. App. 479, 162 S.E. 2d 56.\nWe have examined defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error, and find them to be without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Hassell, for the State.",
      "Murchison, Fox & Newton, by Carter T. Lambeth, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELWOOD HAMMOCK\nNo. 7413SC536\n(Filed 17 July 1974)\n1. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14\u2014 assault on officer serving capias \u2014 necessity for introducing capias\nIn a prosecution for assault upon a law officer while such officer was in the performance of his duties, it was not necessary for the State to offer into evidence the capias which the officer was attempting to serve on defendant at the time the officer was assaulted, since the State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant knew the officer was at defendant\u2019s home in the performance of his duties.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14\u2014 assault on officer in performance of duty \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for assault upon a law officer while such officer was in the performance of his duties, the trial court properly denied defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit where the evidence tended to show that the deputy sheriff who approached defendant\u2019s home was a law enforcement officer and this was known to defendant, the deputy was performing or attempting to perform his duties as a law enforcement officer and this was known to defendant, and defendant assaulted the deputy with a firearm.\nAppeal by defendant from Braswell, Judge, 21 January 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Brunswick County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 June 1974.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with assault with a firearm upon a law-enforcement officer while such officer was in the performance of his duties. G.S. 14-34.2.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show the following: On 16 May 1973, a capias was delivered to Brunswick County Deputy Edwards to be served on defendant. Defendant lived with his wife in a part of the building which houses Bessie\u2019s Package Store at Yaupon Beach. When Deputy Edwards went into Bessie\u2019s Package Store, he observed defendant and his wife through a two by three foot opening in the interior wall, which facilitated a view from the kitchen of the dwelling portion of the building into the package store portion of the building. Defendant was seated at the kitchen table. Deputy Edwards spoke to defendant through the opening in the wall and asked defendant if he was aware he had been due in court that day. Defendant stated that he had sent a doctor\u2019s excuse and had been excused. Deputy Edwards told defendant he would check with the radio dispatcher to determine if defendant had, in fact, been excused. After using his patrol car radio, Deputy Edwards returned to Bessie\u2019s Package Store and told defendant that his excuse had been denied by Judge Clark. Deputy Edwards then asked defendant to come with him so they could get the matter straightened out. The deputy testified: \u201che then seemed very nervous and exicted, and he brought up a double barrel shotgun from behind his right leg, level with my eyes through the hole, and told me that he wasn\u2019t going anywhere with any son of a bitch.\u201d Deputy Edwards backed out of the store and used his patrol car radio to summon help.\nDeputies Reed and Padgett arrived shortly. In the meantime, defendant called Mr. L. D. Jones, assistant police chief at Yaupon Beach, on the telephone and told him \u201cthat the deputy sheriff was up there after him and was going to put him in jail and he had been in jail a good bit of his life and that he wasn\u2019t going to any jail with any deputy sheriff.\u201d Shortly thereafter, Assistant Chief Jones, while driving to work, saw defendant and the sheriff\u2019s deputies.\nDeputy Padgett was at a corner of the building with his pistol drawn. Deputy Reed was taking a shotgun from his patrol car. Deputy Edwards was behind his patrol car with a gun across the car. Defendant was standing in the doorway to the building. Defendant had a shotgun pointed in the direction of Deputy Edwards, and he had his arms around his wife with his wife shielding him. Assistant Chief Jones tried to talk to defendant, but defendant said, \u201cYou\u2019re not going to take me anywhere either,\u201d and he leveled the shotgun at Jones. In spite of the shotgun, Jones continued to talk to defendant until he was close enough to take the shotgun from his hands. Jones opened the breechblock and removed two shells. Defendant was then transported to court in Deputy Reed\u2019s patrol car.\nDefendant offered evidence which tended to show that defendant lacked the mental capacity on the day of the incident to know the nature and quality of his act or to distinguish between right and wrong.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Hassell, for the State.\nMurchison, Fox & Newton, by Carter T. Lambeth, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0439-01",
  "first_page_order": 471,
  "last_page_order": 473
}
