{
  "id": 8550068,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD BLEDSOE, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bledsoe",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7416SC1007",
  "first_page": "32",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "25 N.C. App. 32"
    }
  ],
  "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": "163 S.E. 2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560020
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "88 S.E. 433",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N.C. 787",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272407
      ],
      "year": 1916,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0787-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "189 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 N.C. 415",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575271
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0415-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 679",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 N.C. 379",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564082
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/271/0379-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559179
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0537-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 539,
    "char_count": 8302,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2058888375345435
    },
    "sha256": "44211c416c3b43391fc93e720ea9ffaeae0a993cf0d3beec5ef40467881cc8f1",
    "simhash": "1:d9a734b952e6a4be",
    "word_count": 1407
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD BLEDSOE, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the circumstantial evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to withstand his motions for judgment as of nonsuit. Since defendant offered evidence after his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, we consider only the denial of his motion made at the close of all the evidence. State v. Robbins, 275 N.C. 537, 169 S.E. 2d 858 (1969).\n\u201cThe test of the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand such a motion is the same whether the evidence is circumstantial, direct, or both. [Citation omitted.] \u2018When the motion for nonsuit calls into question the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the question for the court is whether a reasonable inference of defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn from the circumstances. If so, it is for the jury to decide whether the facts, taken singly or in combination, satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is actually guilty.\u2019 [Citation omitted.] \u201d State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 156 S.E. 2d 679 (1967).\nViewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that the trial court properly overruled defendant\u2019s motion. The fact that State\u2019s evidence may have contained a discrepancy as to when Earl Locklear traveled back across the bridges and saw two men fighting along the river did not warrant nonsuit. Contradictions and discrepancies, even in the State\u2019s evidence, are matters for the jury and do not warrant nonsuit. State v. Bolin, 281 N.C. 415, 189 S.E. 2d 235 (1972).\nIn his next assignment of error defendant contends the trial court expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of G.S. 1-180 by recalling and questioning the State\u2019s witness, Earl Locklear, after the State rested its case and defendant moved for judgment as of nonsuit. \u201cIt has been the immemorial custom for the trial judge to examine witnesses who are tendered by either side whenever he sees fit to do so, and the calling of a witness on his own motion differs from this practice in degree and not in kind.\u201d State v. Horne, 171 N.C. 787, 88 S.E. 433 (1916). \u201cSuch examinations should be conducted with care and in a manner which avoids prejudice to either party. If by their tenor, their frequency, or by the persistence of the trial judge they tend to convey to the jury in any manner at any stage of the trial the \u2018impression of judicial leaning,\u2019 they violate the purpose and intent of G.S. 1-180 and constitute prejudicial error.\u201d State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E. 2d 376 (1968). In the present case, the questions posed by the trial court were obviously intended to clarify the testimony of a witness, and they neither expressly nor impliedly amounted to a comment on the evidence by the court. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have carefully considered defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and conclude that they are without merit.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen, for the State.",
      "W. Earl Britt, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD BLEDSOE, JR.\nNo. 7416SC1007\n(Filed 5 March 1975)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 death by drowning \u2014 sufficiency of evidence of homicide\nEvidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a second degree murder prosecution where it tended to show that defendant and deceased argued beside a creek where they had gone to fish, defendant who was highly intoxicated picked up deceased and threw him over his head and down the creek embankment, defendant shouted at deceased to \u201ccome out of there or I\u2019ll kill you,\u201d and deceased died from drowning and lack of air due to aspiration of his fractured denture.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 recall of State\u2019s witness by court \u2014 no expression of opinion\nTrial court\u2019s recalling and questioning of a State\u2019s witness after the State had rested its case did not amount to an expression of opinion by the court where the questions were obviously intended to clarify the testimony of the witness.\nAppeal by defendant from Clark, Judge. Judgment entered 12 September 1974 in Superior Court, Robeson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals on 12 February 1975.\nBy bill of indictment defendant was charged with the murder of Nathan Walters, Jr. The State elected to place defendant on trial for second degree murder to which defendant entered a plea of not guilty.\nState\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 27 April 1974 Dovenel Locklear visited his brother Earl who lived about one-half mile from the \u201cBrown Bridges\u201d which carry the Clio Highway across the Shoe Heel Creek. Intending to visit a friend, the two brothers had occasion to travel across the bridges. At this time Dovenel Locklear noticed two people next to one of the bridges on the embankment. Dovenel Locklear testified identifying one as defendant and the other as a smaller person who appeared to be fishing. He further testified that he \u201cheard the big one call the little one a son-of-a-bitch about twice.\u201d On their return trip the two brothers had crossed the bridges again when Earl said, \u201cLet\u2019s stop, somebody is fighting back down yonder.\u201d Dovenel was driving and did not stop.\nEarl Locklear testified that he saw the \u201clittle fellow\u201d up over defendant\u2019s head and saw defendant throw the \u201clittle fellow\u201d down the embankment. According to this witness:\n\u201cWhen he throwed the little fellow he turned a somersault like and that is the last time I saw him. Where he came to rest I don\u2019t know. When I last saw the little fellow he was tumbling over and hitting the ground. . . . After the little fellow left his hands the big fellow reached down and got a beer and turned it up to his head.\u201d . . ,\nEarl Locklear further testified that the \u201clittle fellow\u201d hit soft mud and that the water in the creek was some ten to fifteen feet from where he fell.\nAfter receiving a radio transmission, Deputy Sheriff Stone testified that he went to the \u201cBrown Bridges\u201d and heard defendant say, \u201cNathan, where you at, Nathan, you son-of-a-bitch, you better come out of there or I\u2019ll kill you.\u201d Describing defendant as \u201chighly intoxicated,\u201d Stone testified that defendant fell to his knees, threw his hands over his eyes and cried, and then crawled toward the water saying, \u201cHe\u2019s in the water.\u201d\nAnother deputy sheriff arrived at the scene and observed a rescue squad dragging the creek with grappling hook and rope. The body of Nathan Walters was recovered from the creek some fifteen feet from the bridge. There were bruises, contusions, and wounds on the body along with dark splotches over the face, blood expelling from an ear and the nose, and cuts across the chin.\nBy stipulation, Dr. Andrews testified as a medical expert for the State. His superficial examination of the body revealed wounds, contusions, and bruises. Pursuant to an autopsy, dentures were found in the place of natural teeth in decedent\u2019s mouth. The lower plate was broken with one-half of it located in the throat just above the voice box. Dr. Andrews opined that Walters\u2019 death was caused by a combination of drowning and lack of air due to aspiration of the fractured denture into the larynx.\nDefendant took the stand in his own behalf testifying that he and Walters had gone fishing and had purchased a case of beer to take along. During the course of the afternoon numerous unidentified people came and left the area. Defendant and Walters drank the beer until Walters got \u201cplain drunk.\u201d Finally, defendant fell asleep or \u201cpassed out\u201d and when he woke up Walters wasn\u2019t there. After looking for him, defendant heard a \u201cfunny sound\u201d and spotted Walters in the water. Walters was holding onto a small tree limb and would not let go. Unable to reach him, defendant ran to a nearby house where the rescue squad was summoned. Defendant denied threatening Walters or picking him up over head and had no knowledge of the various cuts and bruises found on Walters\u2019 body. Defendant estimated his own weight at 240 pounds and that of Walters at 150 pounds.\nOther witnesses for defendant testified that they did not hear defendant threaten to kill Walters if he did not \u201ccome out.\u201d One witness testified that she saw no blood bn defendant\u2019s clothing.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter,. and from judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant \u25a0 appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Noel Lee Allen, for the State.\nW. Earl Britt, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0032-01",
  "first_page_order": 60,
  "last_page_order": 63
}