{
  "id": 8550224,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY RAY WRIGHT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wright",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7520SC773",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 481"
    }
  ],
  "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": "193 S.E. 2d 746",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567744,
        8567630,
        8567568,
        8567605,
        8567707
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0583-05",
        "/nc/282/0583-03",
        "/nc/282/0583-01",
        "/nc/282/0583-02",
        "/nc/282/0583-04"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553356
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/16/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 193",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550634
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/26/0193-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 915",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 298",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608270
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0298-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556308
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0421-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562638
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0158-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 361,
    "char_count": 6003,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.555,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.601136377262063e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6839060887333586
    },
    "sha256": "a878722a1eadb79c3fb565b41bf1555d362a322a7d5f01729542eb64bc052e76",
    "simhash": "1:85b9d2a9467385e5",
    "word_count": 1057
  },
  "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 Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY RAY WRIGHT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nThe defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury \u201con the law of a shooting by accident or misadventure\u201d and the failure of the court \u201cto state the defendant\u2019s evidence on a shooting by accident or misadventure to an extent necessary to explain the application of the law thereto.\u201d\nEvery \u201csubstantial feature\u201d of the case arising on the evidence must be presented to the jury even without a special request for instructions on the issue. State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974); State v. Hickman, 21 N.C. App. 421, 204 S.E. 2d 718 (1974). It is the statutory duty of the trial judge to \u201cdeclare and explain the la.w arising on the evidence given in the case.\u201d N.C. G.S. 1-180.\nThe defendant contends and the defendant\u2019s evidence tends to show that he never intended to shoot Bennett but that the gun fired accidentally as the defendant was attempting to make Bennett leave his house.\nA review of the judge\u2019s charge to the jury shows that although the court in reviewing the evidence for the defendant stated,\n\u201c . . . The victim grabbed the barrel and in the tussle made the gun fire. That he didn\u2019t intend to shoot the victim.\nThat he had no intention of shooting him. That the gun was fired by accident or misadventure,\u201d\nthere is nowhere in the charge any explanation of the law arising from a shooting by accident or misadventure nor is there any attempt to explain accident or misadventure as it would apply to the evidence of this case.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence of accident or misadventure is a substantial feature of the case. See, State v. Floyd, 241 N.C. 298, 84 S.E. 2d 915 (1954) ; State v. Moore, 26 N.C. App. 193, 215 S.E. 2d 171 (1975) ; State v. Douglas, 16 N.C. App. 597, 192 S.E. 2d 643 (1972) ; cert. denied, 282 N.C. 583, 193 S.E. 2d 746 (1973). The failure of the trial judge to declare and explain the law of accident or misadventure as it applies to this case, even in the absence of a request for such instructions is prejudicial error for which the defendant is entitled to a new trial.\nWe do not discuss defendant\u2019s other assignment of error since it is not likely to occur at a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Cynthia Jean Zeliff for the State.",
      "Coble, Morton, Grigg and Odom by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY RAY WRIGHT\nNo. 7520SC773\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nAssault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014 failure to charge on accident or misadventure\nThe trial court in a felonious assault case erred in failing to declare and explain the law of accident or misadventure as it applied to the evidence in the case where defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that he did not intend to shoot the victim but that his gun fired accidentally as defendant was attempting to make the victim leave his house.\nAppeal by defendant from Chess, Judge. Judgment entered 6 June 1975 in Superior Court, Stanly County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 January 1976.\nThe defendant, Bobby Ray Wright, was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with assault on James Bennett with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. The defendant pleaded not guilty and the State offered evidence tending to show the following.\nOn 7 March 1975, James Bennett, a neighbor and brother-in-law of the defendant, stopped his car in front of the defendant\u2019s house and went to the door to tell him that the lights on his camper were on. Just prior to Bennett\u2019s stopping at the defendant\u2019s house, the defendant had refused to sell him some snuff on credit. When the defendant came to the door, he began cursing Bennett. The defendant then came out on the porch and pushed Bennett against the banister. A \u201ctussle\u201d ensued but no blows were struck. The two men separated and Bennett said, \u201cBobby, what are we fighting for?\u201d Bennett had followed the defendant into the house and the defendant told him to leave. Bennett lingered repeating the question, then saw the defendant pick up a shotgun from inside the bedroom door. Bennett said he was leaving, but the defendant shot him in the thigh and abdomen with the gun as he stood facing him on the front porch.\nThe defendant testified that Bennett came onto the porch to tell him the camper lights were on. However, when the defendant told him that he knew the lights were on, Bennett began cursing him. The defendant told Bennett, \u201cIf you have to come to my house cursing, raising hell, I\u2019d rather for you to stay away.\u201d The defendant went back into the house, closed the door and sat down. Bennett opened the door and came into the house, but the defendant pushed him out with his arm. When they were on the porch again, Bennett grabbed the defendant, and they tussled until the defendant pinned him on the floor. When the defendant got up, he went back into the house. Bennett barged into the house again, and the defendant reached into the bedroom and got his shotgun. He told Bennett to get out of the house. Using the barrel of the gun, he pushed him back onto the porch. As they stood on the porch, the defendant held the gun down by his side. He raised the gun to point it at Bennett, \u201cfiguring it would frighten him away.\u201d Bennett grabbed the barrel of the gun with both hands causing it to discharge. It was never the intention of the defendant to shoot Bennett; he only wanted \u201cto frighten him off away from [his] house.\u201d\nCarol Wilson, who testified for the defendant, corroborated his testimony that the gun discharged when Bennett grabbed the barrel with his hands.\nRoger Lowder, a deputy sheriff in Stanly County who testified in rebuttal for the State, testified to a statement made by the defendant which likewise corroborated his testimony that the gun went off when Bennett grabbed the barrel.\nFrom a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon' inflicting serious injury and judgment imposing a prison sentence of three to five years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Cynthia Jean Zeliff for the State.\nCoble, Morton, Grigg and Odom by Ernest H. Morton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 511
}