{ "id": 8553096, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUIS GUNN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Gunn", "decision_date": "1975-02-05", "docket_number": "No. 7427SC920", "first_page": "561", "last_page": "563", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "24 N.C. App. 561" } ], "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": "199 S.E. 2d 409", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "412" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 67", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559900 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "73" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0067-01" ] }, { "cite": "408 U.S. 940", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782823, 1782911, 1782987, 1782924, 1782989, 1782702, 1782929, 1782838, 1782871, 1782745, 1782844, 1782878, 1782815 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0940-10", "/us/408/0940-04", "/us/408/0940-05", "/us/408/0940-11", "/us/408/0940-01", "/us/408/0940-02", "/us/408/0940-08", "/us/408/0940-09", "/us/408/0940-06", "/us/408/0940-03", "/us/408/0940-13", "/us/408/0940-07", "/us/408/0940-12" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 227", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571921 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573537 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 213", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 497", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565262 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0497-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 361, "char_count": 5658, "ocr_confidence": 0.603, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.0011153170616546e-08, "percentile": 0.3136565104760934 }, "sha256": "c80ff1c5e05ae1c48507db8c65c028d69f4d569adccac9d38243c0cb981ca255", "simhash": "1:c329f5e2542e1ef7", "word_count": 949 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:40.635509+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUIS GUNN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nOn the cross-examination of the prosecuting witness, Terry Pruitt, the trial court sustained an objection by the State to the following question:\n\u201cQ. And I\u2019ll ask you if you haven\u2019t been putting out feelers to see if Louis wouldn\u2019t pay you some money, isn\u2019t that right?\u201d\nDefendant contends this was prejudicial error as he was attempting to establish bias on the part of the State\u2019s witness. We do not agree.\nAlthough wide lattitude is allowed a defendant on cross-examination to show the bias or hostility of a State\u2019s witness against the defendant, the trial judge does have some discretion to confine the cross-examination within reasonable limits. State v. Carey, 285 N.C. 497, 206 S.E. 2d 213 (1974). In the case at bar, the record does not disclose what Pruitt would have said had he been permitted to answer the question. Furthermore, based upon the issues involved in the case, it is not at all clear whether an affirmative response would have directly challenged the disinterestedness or credibility of the State\u2019s witness. State v. Carey, supra. Therefore, we are unwilling to say that the trial judge abused his discretion. The burden is on appellant not only to show error but to show prejudicial error. State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20 (1972). See also, State v. Chance, 279 N.C. 643, 185 S.E. 2d 227 (1971), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 408 U.S. 940.\nDefendant also contends the trial court erred in its instructions to the jury with respect to his defense of intoxication in that the court only related the defense to an intentional or willful shooting and not to a shooting arising from wanton conduct on the part of the defendant. He, therefore, argues that the trial judge permitted the jury to find him guilty without determining whether he had the specific intent to discharge a firearm into an occupied dwelling. We do not agree.\nG.S. 14-34.1 provides: \u201cAny person who wilfully or wantonly discharges a firearm into or attempts to discharge a firearm into any building . . . while it is occupied is guilty of a felony punishable as provided in \u00a7 14-2.\u201d [Emphasis ours.]\n\u201cThe attempt to draw a sharp line between a \u2018wilful\u2019 act and a \u2018wanton\u2019 act in the context of G.S. 14-34.1 would be futile. The elements of each are substantially the same.\nWe hold that a person is guilty of the felony created by G.S. 14-34.1 if he intentionally, without legal justification or excuse, discharges a firearm into an occupied building with knowledge that the building is then occupied by one or more persons or when he has reasonable grounds to believe that the building might be occupied by one or more persons.\u201d State v. Williams, 284 N.C. 67, 73, 199 S.E. 2d 409, 412 (1973).\nHere, the trial judge explained to the jury the meaning of a \u201cwilful\u201d and a \u201cwanton\u201d act. However, he also specifically instructed the jury that before it could find the defendant guilty it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted \u201cintentionally.\u201d This was clearly proper. State v. Williams, supra. The court further instructed the jury that this intent was a specific intent which could be negated by the voluntary intoxication of the defendant. When considered contextually as a whole, the charge to the jury is free from prejudicial error.\nThe defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney James E. Delany for the State.", "Childers and Fowler by Max L. Childers and Henry L. Fowler, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LOUIS GUNN\nNo. 7427SC920\n(Filed 5 February 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 cross-examination of prosecuting witness\nIn a prosecution for feloniously discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to .ask the prosecuting witness on cross-examination whether he had been putting out feelers to see if defendant would pay him some money since it is not clear that an affirmative response would have directly challenged the credibility of the, witness.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15 \u2014 discharging firearm into occupied dwelling \u2014 intoxication \u2014 instructions\nIn a prosecution for feloniously discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling, the trial court did not err in failing to relate the defense of intoxication to \u201cwanton\u201d conduct where the court explained the meaning of a \u201cwilful\u201d and a \u201cwanton\u201d act, told the jury that in order to find defendant guilty it must find that he acted \u201cintentionally,\u201d and further instructed that such intent could be negated by the voluntary intoxication of defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge, 22 July 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Gaston County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 14 January 1975.\nThis is a criminal prosecution wherein the defendant, Louis Gunn, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with feloniously discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling in violation of G.S. 14-34.1.\nThe State offered evidence tending to show, among other things, that at approximately 11:45 p.m. on 8 October 1973 the defendant, armed with a .38 caliber pistol, fired four times into a dwelling occupied by Terry Pruitt, Cindy Campbell, and Crystal Gann. The defendant testified in his own behalf that he did not own a .38 pistol and that he was so intoxicated on the day in question that he had no recollection of his actions after one o\u2019clock in the afternoon.\nThe jury returned a verdict of \u201cguilty as charged\u201d and the trial court sentenced the defendant to a jail term of two (2) years.\nDefendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney James E. Delany for the State.\nChilders and Fowler by Max L. Childers and Henry L. Fowler, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0561-01", "first_page_order": 589, "last_page_order": 591 }