{
  "id": 8549934,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS WOODSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Woodson",
  "decision_date": "1976-11-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7617SC446",
  "first_page": "400",
  "last_page": "401",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 400"
    }
  ],
  "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": "221 S.E. 2d 720",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550297
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/28/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 799",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 141",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567202,
        8567171,
        8567095,
        8567067,
        8567135
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0141-05",
        "/nc/289/0141-04",
        "/nc/289/0141-02",
        "/nc/289/0141-01",
        "/nc/289/0141-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 S.E. 2d 301",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553941
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/27/0388-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562638
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 728",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616814
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0728-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3295,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.7,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20588594161281218
    },
    "sha256": "e228cf3ccc774d39224a3604c3a4ba51fe0a9a84c218ea73a682bd20264bd9a9",
    "simhash": "1:a770b4283517861c",
    "word_count": 575
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS WOODSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nIt is not necessary to state the facts except to say that there was ample evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury. There must be a new trial, nevertheless, because of errors in the charge. Defendant admitted shooting the victim. Defendant was standing on the porch of his home when he fired the shot. Defendant\u2019s evidence was calculated to show that he shot in self-defense.\nDefendant contends that the judge failed to declare and explain the law arising upon the evidence as it related to defendant\u2019s right to defend himself in his home. The exception is well taken and requires a new trial. State v. Poplin, 238 N.C. 728, 78 S.E. 2d 777.\nDefendant also assigns error to the charge in that the court did not include a specific instruction on self-defense in his final mandate to the jury. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815, such an instruction must be given in the final mandate.\nIn Dooley the judge explained the law as it related to self-defense and explained what must be shown in order to excuse defendant\u2019s conduct on that ground. The Supreme Court, nevertheless, granted a new trial because of \u201c[t]he failure of the trial judge to include not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict in his final mandate . . . .\u201d (Emphasis added.) State v. Dooley, supra. The final mandate in the case at bar is almost identical to the one that required reversal in State v. Girley, 27 N.C. App. 388, 219 S.E. 2d 301, cert. den., 289 N.C. 141, 220 S.E. 2d 799. In compliance with the decision of the Supreme Court in Dooley, this Court was required to also order a new trial in State v. Hunt, 28 N.C. App. 486, 221 S.E. 2d 720. In that case, as here, the Court failed to include not guilty by reason of self-defense in his final mandate.\nThe questions raised by defendant\u2019s other assignments of error may not recur at the next trial and will not be considered on this appeal.\nThere must be a new trial for the reasons stated.\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Has-kell, for the State.",
      "Alston & Hart, by Vernon Hart, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THOMAS WOODSON\nNo. 7617SC446\n(Piled 3 November 1976)\n1. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014 failure to instruct on defense of home\nThe trial court in a felonious assault case erred in failing to instruct on defendant\u2019s right to defend himself in his home where the evidence showed defendant was standing on the porch of his home when he shot the victim and defendant presented evidence tending to show that he shot in self-defense.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014 instructions \u2014 final mandate \u2014 not guilty by reason of self-defense\nThe trial judge in a felonious assault case erred in failing to include not guilty by reason of self-defense as a possible verdict in his final mandate to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 17 December 1975 in Superior Court, Caswell County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 October 1976.\nDefendant was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. Judgment was entered imposing a prison sentence of twenty years.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Elisha H. Bunting, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Ralf F. Has-kell, for the State.\nAlston & Hart, by Vernon Hart, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0400-01",
  "first_page_order": 428,
  "last_page_order": 429
}