{ "id": 8550547, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST LINWOOD EDWARDS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edwards", "decision_date": "1974-12-18", "docket_number": "No. 745SC887", "first_page": "303", "last_page": "305", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "24 N.C. App. 303" } ], "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": "409 U.S. 1004", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6436170, 6436273, 6435889, 6436023, 6435963 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/409/1004-04", "/us/409/1004-05", "/us/409/1004-01", "/us/409/1004-03", "/us/409/1004-02" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 181", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570781 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0181-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 393", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565707 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 548", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558414 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 765", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 205", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563764 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0205-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 371, "char_count": 5158, "ocr_confidence": 0.613, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.2058986836684301 }, "sha256": "f60410fc5073d66cfc0a9f81fcd12527236aff67e25146c0e734a33317d2635a", "simhash": "1:01e890183e376852", "word_count": 876 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST LINWOOD EDWARDS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court in effect equated manslaughter with second degree murder by instructing that defendant would be guilty of manslaughter if \u201che intentionally and unlawfully stabbed and killed Harold Arthur . ...\u201d It is well settled, however, that the charge of the court will be construed contextually, and when it is correct as a whole, isolated portions will not be held to be prejudicial. State v. Lee, 277 N.C. 205, 176 S.E. 2d 765; State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E. 2d 548. Prior to giving the above instruction, the court properly defined manslaughter as \u201cthe unlawful killing of a human being without malice, express or implied, and without deliberation or premeditation.\u201d See State v. Duboise, 279 N.C. 73, 181 S.E. 2d 393. When the jury later requested repeated instructions on the offenses charged, the court again gave a proper definition of manslaughter. Read in the context of the charge as a whole, any possibility of prejudice in the defective charge was removed.\nDefendant also contends that the court erred in stating in the presence of the jury its finding that a medical doctor was an expert witness. In State v. Frazier, 280 N.C. 181, 185 S.E. 2d 652, vacated on other grounds, 409 U.S. 1004 (1972), the North Carolina Supreme Court held that such a ruling could only have been understood by the jury to mean that the witness was qualified to testify as to his opinion. This assignment of error therefore is without merit.\nThe evidence against the defendant, including his own declaration of guilt, was overwhelming. He received a fair trial free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by. Assistant Attorney General Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., for the State.", "Harold P. Lamg for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ERNEST LINWOOD EDWARDS\nNo. 745SC887\n(Filed 18 December 1974)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 27\u2014 manslaughter \u2014 instructions proper\nTrial court's definition of manslaughter as \u201cthe unlawful killing of a human being without malice, express or implied, and without deliberation or premeditation\u201d followed by the statement that defendant would be guilty of manslaughter if \u201che intentionally and unlawfully stabbed and killed\u201d deceased properly instructed the jury in a second degree murder case.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 51, 99 \u2014 expert witness \u2014 statement of finding in presence of jury \u2014 no error\nTrial court\u2019s statement in the presence of the jury that a medical doctor was an expert witness could only have been understood by the jury to mean that the witness was qualified to testify as to his opinion, and such statement was not prejudicial error.\nOn certiorari to review trial before Cohoon, Judge, 20 September 1973 Session of Superior Court held in New Hanover County. Heard in Court of Appeals 10 December 1974.\nDefendant, Ernest Linwood Edwards, was charged in an indictment with the first degree murder of Harold Arthur on 31 May 1973. The State elected to try him on charges of second degree murder and any lesser included offenses. Defendant pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that early in the afternoon on 31 May 1973, Edwards and Arthur went to the house of William Irick where they drank vodka and watched television. When they left, they drove to Arthur\u2019s trailer. Edwards had been living at the trailer and taking care of Arthur for the past few weeks. Shortly after they left Irick\u2019s house, Edwards returned, hysterical, and told Irick he had stabbed Arthur. The police were summoned. They found Arthur sitting in a chair outside the trailer bleeding from a wound in his right side. A physician, who performed the post mortem, testified that Arthur died as the result of a laceration in the abdominal wall and liver, caused by a long sharp object. Inside the trailer, police found a trail of blood from the front door to a couch and a large bloody knife in the kitchen sink.\nA neighbor testified that he saw Edwards and Arthur go into the trailer, and shortly thereafter heard a voice say, \u201cHelp me, help me.\u201d Arthur came out of the trailer and said, \u201cI have been stabbed.\u201d Edwards then drove away. The police found Edwards at Irick\u2019s house. He had some red spots on his shirt. Both men appeared to be intoxicated.\nDefendant testified that he first went to Irick\u2019s house alone. Later he went back to the trailer, picked up Arthur and took him to Irick\u2019s. The three of them then went to Arthur\u2019s trailer. Defendant took some medicine for a heart condition and went to lie down in the bedroom. Arthur and Irick discussed some money that Irick owed Arthur for a car. Defendant dozed off and awakened to find Irick and Arthur gone. He went to Irick\u2019s house to look for them, had a drink, and fell asleep again. This was the last thing he remembered before the police arrived. He stated that the spots on his shirt were from a shaving cut.\nThe jury returned a verdict of - guilty of murder in the second degree. From judgment imposing sentence of 20 to 25 years imprisonment, defendant appealed. The appeal was not perfected in apt time and this Court granted certiorari.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by. Assistant Attorney General Lester V. Chalmers, Jr., for the State.\nHarold P. Lamg for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0303-01", "first_page_order": 331, "last_page_order": 333 }