{
  "id": 8548871,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEO COBLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Coble",
  "decision_date": "1974-12-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7419SC826",
  "first_page": "79",
  "last_page": "83",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "24 N.C. App. 79"
    }
  ],
  "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": "147 S.E. 2d 198",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 743",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563182
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0743-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 28",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560837
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 924",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 N.C. App. 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551087
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/7/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 N.C. 380",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2219561
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/244/0380-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "160 S.E. 2d 469",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0509-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 440,
    "char_count": 7836,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20586412566910273
    },
    "sha256": "7d32a7759e1c78aa33bb0ee86c777b4fd2e15ae82e1fc5558e12066676737cee",
    "simhash": "1:816fa26b670a86fa",
    "word_count": 1354
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEO COBLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nBy defendant\u2019s first two assignments of error, he contends it was error to deny his motions for dismissal and judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence. We disagree. It is well settled in this State that \u201c ... in passing upon a motion for nonsuit in a criminal case, the court must consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and give the State benefit of every reasonable inference which may be legitimately drawn therefrom. State v. Goines, 273 N.C. 509, 160 S.E. 2d 469. If when so considered there is substantial evidence, whether direct, circumstantial, or both, of all material elements of the offense charged, then the motion for nonsuit must be denied and it is then for the jury to determine whether the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Stephens, 244 N.C. 380, 93 S.E. 2d 431.\u201d State v. Locklear, 7 N.C. App. 493, 496, 172 S.E. 2d 924 (1970). After carefully reviewing the record, we hold that the court properly ruled that the evidence in this case was sufficient to withstand defendant\u2019s motions for nonsuit.\nDefendant\u2019s third and fourth assignments of error deal with two portions of the trial court\u2019s charge to the jury. The challenged instructions are as follows:\n1. \u201cThe State says and contends that this defendant was in an unlawful business there, selling liquor. The State says and contends that this defendant struck the first blow that was struck by knocking the liquor out of the hand'of this man that he had poured the liquor for, and brought all this on.\u201d\n2. \u201cThe State says and contends, that there is no evidence here to the affect (sic) that this defendant was in danger of any great bodily harm at the hands of this man who was coming in. The State says and contends this defendant got his gun and sat facing the door with it on his lap ready to crack down on whoever came in or if this man came in, this particular man.\nSo the State says and contends, members of the jury, there wasn\u2019t any self defense in this; that he wasn\u2019t justified because a man is doing a lot of cursing, and under these circumstances there ought not be any question in., your mind about it.\u201d\nDefendant argues that the trial court misstated the contentions of the State in these portions of the charge, to his prejudice. For example, he notes that the State did not contend that the defendant was in an unlawful business nor did the State contend there was no evidence that defendant was in \u25a0 danger of great bodily harm. Defendant also maintains that there is nothing in the record indicating that the defendant got his gun and sat facing the door \u201c [r] eady to crack down on whoever came in or if this man came in, this particular man.\u201d . We find defendant\u2019s argument unpersuasive.\nAlthough the record does not contain the closing argument of either the solicitor or defense counsel, we are of the opinion that the State presented competent evidence from which the trial judge could legitimately, fairly and logically infer such contentions. Where an examination of the record discloses evidence from which inferences related by the court as a contention of the State could legitimately, fairly and logically be drawn by the jury, such a statement of a valid contention based on competent evidence is not error. State v. Virgil, 276 N.C. 217, 172 S.E. 2d 28 (1970) citing State v. Ford, 266 N.C. 743, 147 S.E. 2d 198 (1966).\nFurthermore, there is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the defendant made any objection to,the trial court\u2019s statement of the State\u2019s contentions and, therefore, defendant has waived such objections.\n\u201c [I]t is the general rule that objections to the charge in reviewing the evidence and stating the contentions of the parties must be made before the jury retires so as to afford the trial judge an opportunity for correction; otherwise they are deemed to have been waived and will not be considered on appeal. (Citations omitted.)\u201d State v. Virgil, supra, at 230.\nWe have carefully reviewed the record and conclude that the defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Webb, for the State.",
      "Bell, Ogburn and Redding, by Deane F. Bell, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LEO COBLE\nNo. 7419SC826\n(Filed 4 December 1974)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21 \u2014 second degree murder \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for second degree murder where it tended to show that defendant and deceased engaged in an altercation at defendant\u2019s house concerning payment for a drink of liquor defendant gave deceased, that defendant sat in the front door with his rifle and said if deceased came back he was going to kill him, that deceased returned to defendant\u2019s house and told defendant, \u201cYou can shoot me if you want to,\u201d that gunshots were heard, that deceased\u2019s body was found in the front yard of defendant\u2019s house, and that the investigating officer found under defendant\u2019s bed a rifle that had been recently fired.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 118; Homicide \u00a7 23\u2014 statement of State\u2019s contentions \u2014 inferences from evidence\nIn this homicide case, the State\u2019s evidence supported inferences related by the court that the State contended defendant was in the unlawful business of selling liquor, that defendant was not in danger of great bodily harm from deceased, and that defendant got his gun and sat facing the door \u201cready to crack down on whoever came in or if this man came in, this particular man.\u201d\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge, 10 June 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Randolph County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 November 1974.\nDefendant was charged with the offense of second degree murder. Upon a plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From judgment entered on the verdict, defendant appealed.\nState\u2019s evidence tended to show that the deceased, Tommy Freeland, came to the defendant\u2019s house and wanted a drink of liquor; that defendant poured him the drink and asked to be paid but deceased said he wasn\u2019t going to pay for it; that a fight ensued when defendant slapped the drink from the deceased\u2019s hand, and the deceased slapped back; that defendant brought a pistol from his pocket, fired it into the floor and asked deceased to leave his house; that another individual present finally persuaded deceased to leave and attempted to calm down the defendant who \u201cwas very upset at that time.\u201d Other evidence offered by the State showed that defendant said he was getting tired of deceased coming in and running over him all the time; that the defendant got a rifle and went outside and shot it into the air about three or four times and returned saying, \u201cI didn\u2019t hit nothing\u201d; that when defendant came back into his house he sat in front of the door with the rifle lying across his legs and said that if the deceased came back he was going to kill him, he was going to shoot him. Witnesses for the State testified that the deceased later returned to the defendant\u2019s house and walked in saying to the defendant, \u201cYou can shoot me. You can shoot me if you want to\u201d; and that although none of the witnesses actually saw the shooting, one witness testified that he heard gunshots going off, more than two and perhaps as many as six. The investigating officer further testified that he found the deceased lying face up in the front yard of defendant\u2019s house and that he found under a bed in defendant\u2019s house a .22 automatic rifle which had been fired recently. Defendant offered no evidence. His motions for a dismissal and judgment as of nonsuit at the conclusion of the State\u2019s evidence and at the conclusion of all of the evidence were denied.\nAttorney General Carson, by Assistant Attorney General Webb, for the State.\nBell, Ogburn and Redding, by Deane F. Bell, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0079-01",
  "first_page_order": 107,
  "last_page_order": 111
}