{
  "id": 8547942,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WARDLOW, J. C. WARDLOW",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wardlow",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 7515SC571",
  "first_page": "220",
  "last_page": "221",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 220"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 178,
    "char_count": 2197,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "sha256": "3e4adc372f09576da16371f050900bac1711ba2fd85e45ce9d58f0b9d5ac867c",
    "simhash": "1:c9fec26eae900db0",
    "word_count": 351
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WARDLOW, J. C. WARDLOW"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nDuring the course of the trial, defendants presented evidence tending to show that the assault was committed in self-defense. After retiring for deliberation, the jury returned to the courtroom and asked to be instructed again on the applicable law of self-defense. As the record appears before us, the court apparently advised the jury that:\n\u201cNow, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant assaulted the prosecuting witness but do not find that he had an intent to kill, that assault would be excused as being in self-defense of the circumstances at the time that he acted and as would create in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness a reasonable belief that such action was necessary to protect himself from bodily injury or offensive physical contact, and that the circumstances did create such a belief in the defendant\u2019s mind.\u201d\nThis instruction tends to .confuse the various critical elements of the law of self-defense and could possibly engender some misunderstanding in the minds of the jurors as to the nature of the applicable law. Therefore, a new trial must be had for both defendants.\nNew trial.\nJudges Parker and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert P. Gruber, for the State.",
      "Dunn and Eifort, by Joseph D. Eifort, for defendant appellants."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDOLPH WARDLOW, J. C. WARDLOW\nNo. 7515SC571\n(Filed 17 December 1975)\nAssault and Battery \u00a7 15 \u2014 self-defense \u2014 confusing instructions\nIn a prosecution for felonious assault, the. trial court\u2019s instructions on self-defense, including an instruction that if the jury did not find defendant had an intent to kill, the assault would be excused as being in self-defense, were confusing and constituted prejudicial error.\nAppeal by defendants from Winner, Judge. Judgment entered 13 February 1975 in Superior Court, Orange County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1975.\nDefendants were charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill inflicting serious injury. From pleas of not guilty, the jury returned verdicts of guilty. From judgment sentencing them to terms of imprisonment, defendants appeal.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Robert P. Gruber, for the State.\nDunn and Eifort, by Joseph D. Eifort, for defendant appellants."
  },
  "file_name": "0220-01",
  "first_page_order": 248,
  "last_page_order": 249
}