{
  "id": 8548986,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE ERNEST POOLE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Poole",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 7520SC550",
  "first_page": "344",
  "last_page": "346",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 344"
    }
  ],
  "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": "421 U.S. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        541415
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/421/0684-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570479
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "421 U.S. 684",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        541415
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/421/0684-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 3287,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.566,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20586702159083406
    },
    "sha256": "3f717fdcd26db6bd5a977b7b934ab09d864b6222cc481c68bfaa97555bbb6c88",
    "simhash": "1:622e226f2e8802e7",
    "word_count": 549
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brook and Judge Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE ERNEST POOLE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CLARK, Judge.\nAll of defendant\u2019s assignments of error relate to the trial court\u2019s charge to the jury.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in (1) placing on defendant the burden of satisfying the jury that there was no malice in order to reduce the crime from second-degree murder, and (2) in the placing of the burden on the defendant to satisfy the jury that he acted in self-defense.\nThe defendant relies on Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed. 2d 508 (1975), decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on 9 June 1975. In Mullaney it was held that Maine law, which required a defendant charged with murder to prove that he acted in the heat of passion on sudden provocation to reduce the homicide to manslaughter, was in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which requires that the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged; to satisfy that requirement the prosecution in a homicide case must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the absence of the heat of passion on sudden provocation when the issue is properly presented.\nIn State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575 (1975), the Supreme Court of North Carolina declined, without further guidance from the United States Supreme Court, to give the decision retroactive effect. Thus, the case at bar, tried at the 1 April 1975 Session (judgment entered 2 April 1975) is not now controlled in North Carolina by the Mullaaiey decision of 9 June 1975.\nWe have carefully considered the other assignments of error. We note that defendant did not tender requests for further instructions on any subordinate feature of the case. Construing the charge contextually, we find that the trial judge properly applied the law to the evidence in all essential features of the case.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brook and Judge Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CLARK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Senior Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Zoro J. Guice, Jr., for the State.",
      "Coble, Morton, Grigg & Odom by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GEORGE ERNEST POOLE\nNo. 7520SC550\n(Filed 7 January 1976)\nHomicide \u00a7\u00a7 14, 24\u2014 burden of proof \u2014 absence of malice \u2014 self-defense \u2014 nonretroactivity of Mullaney decision\nSince the decision of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1976) is not retroactive, it was not erroneous for the court in a murder trial held prior to the date of that decision to place on defendant the burden of satisfying the jury that there was no malice in order to reduce the crime to manslaughter and that he acted in self-defense.\nAppeal by defendant from Long, Judge. Judgment entered 2 April 1975 in Superior Court, Stanly County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 October 1975.\nThe State sought a verdict of second-degree murder for the killing of Jessie Sturdivant. The evidence tended to show that Sturdivant accused defendant of cheating and that after an argument Sturdivant grabbed him around the neck from behind. Defendant threw him to the floor and shot him three times. Sturdivant died as a result of a wound which penetrated his heart.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant appeals from judgment imposing imprisonment.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Senior Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Zoro J. Guice, Jr., for the State.\nCoble, Morton, Grigg & Odom by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0344-01",
  "first_page_order": 372,
  "last_page_order": 374
}
