{
  "id": 8550297,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN T. HUNT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hunt",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7514SC498",
  "first_page": "486",
  "last_page": "488",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 486"
    }
  ],
  "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": "95 S.E. 2d 452",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607855
      ],
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S.E. 2d 769",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 101",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8624570
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0101-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 357,
    "char_count": 4830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779088e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6362809183083648
    },
    "sha256": "5936f78273d314e7c0b9413827461a8187f849b0128117c9498c57556816c10e",
    "simhash": "1:97c9d743678e9661",
    "word_count": 814
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN T. HUNT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court, in its final mandate, to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty if they should find that defendant acted in self-defense. Defendant contends that under State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974), this is reversible error.\nThe trial judge is required to instruct the jury as to the law -based-on the evidence presented. G.S. 1-180. The judge is to charge-on all substantial features of the case which arise from the. evidence; and .all defenses presented by the evidence are substantial features of the cas\u00e9. State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 118 S.E. 2d 769 (1961). If there is evidence that defendant acted in self-defense the judge must charge on self-defense even though there is contradictory evidence by the State or discrepancies in defendant\u2019s evidence. State v. Dooley, supra; State v. Hipp, 245 N.C. 205, 95 S.E. 2d 452 (1956).\n-It is argued by the State that under the circumstances, a defense of self-defense was not raised, and that it was only out of abundant caution that self-defense was charged. The charge included a general statement concerning the law of self-defense and the things of which defendant must satisfy the jury in order to excuse the killing on grounds of self-defense.\nIn his final mandate the judge described each of the possible offenses and stated that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant \u201cwithout justification or excuse\u201d shot the deceased. He further instructed that \u201cif you have a reasonable doubt as to any one or more of these things, it is your duty to return a verdict of not guilty.\u201d The State asserts that based on these instructions, considered as a whole, it could not be assumed by the jury that a verdict of not guilty by reason of self-defense was not a permissible verdict.\nWhile the State makes a logical argument Dooley nevertheless does require the trial judge to include not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict in his final mandate where the defense has been raised by the evidence. A failure to do so is not cured by an instruction on the law of self-defense in the body of the charge. State v. Dooley, supra, at 165, 166.\nDefendant is entitled to a new trial for omission in the judge\u2019s final mandate to the jury that self-defense was a possibility of acquittal.\nA discussion of defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error is deemed unnecessary.\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmislen, by Associate Attorney Jerry J. Rutledge and Assistant Attorney General Robert P. Gruber, for the State.",
      "Alwood B. Warren for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BENJAMIN T. HUNT\nNo. 7514SC498\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nHomicide \u00a7 28 \u2014 \u2022instructions \u2014 final mandate \u2014 possible verdicts \u2014 not guilty by reason of self-defense\nDefendant is entitled to a new trial since the trial court failed to include not guilty by reason of self-defense in its final mandate to the jury.\nOn writ of certiorari to review proceedings before Braswell, Judge. Judgment entered 5 December 1974 in Superior Court, Durham County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 25 September 1975.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging the first degree murder of Lonnie D. Leonard. The following is what the evidence tends to reveal.\nOn 15 January 1973, the defendant operated an automobile repair business in a garage behind his home. Between 8 :00 and 8:30 p.m. Tony Walker, Steve Walker, Charles Leonard, Lonnie D. Leonard and Debra Stone came by defendant\u2019s home to pick up Walker\u2019s car which was being repaired by defendant. Defendant had retired for the evening but went outside in response to Walker\u2019s knock at the door.\nAn argument then ensued that attracted the attention of defendant\u2019s wife inside the house as well as the next door neighbor. Mrs. Hunt observed her husband attempting t\u00f3 free himself from Walker and his group as they were holding defendant and physically threatening him.\nMrs. Hunt screamed for her daughter to call the sheriff, and she obtained a .22 caliber pistol and ran to the doorway. Defendant had retreated back onto the porch, and he took the pistol from Mrs. Hunt.\nDefendant fired towards the ground and ordered everyone to leave. More cursing and \u201cfussing\u201d followed from the Walker party, and one of the men ran up onto the porch towards defendant. Several shots were fired. Walker stated that he was not afraid of defendant\u2019s \u201cpop gun\u201d because he had something \u201cbetter\u201d and \u201cbigger.\u201d\nFollowing more threats and curses the group left. It was discovered that Lonnie D. Leonard had been shot. An' autopsy revealed that Leonard was under the influence of alcohol, at the time of his death.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and defendant was given an active sentence.\nAttorney General Edmislen, by Associate Attorney Jerry J. Rutledge and Assistant Attorney General Robert P. Gruber, for the State.\nAlwood B. Warren for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0486-01",
  "first_page_order": 514,
  "last_page_order": 516
}