{ "id": 8549884, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD HILL", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hill", "decision_date": "1977-02-02", "docket_number": "No. 767SC679", "first_page": "261", "last_page": "265", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "32 N.C. App. 261" } ], "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 ], "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, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "589" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 632", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570479 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "651" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0632-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 901", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "25 N.C. App. 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553455 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/25/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 207", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622510 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567347 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "208 S.E. 2d 656", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 708", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569743 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0708-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 755", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "759" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 561", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561152 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "567" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0561-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 533", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "536" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 147", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8547141 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "150" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0147-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573795 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 387", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "394" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 254", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568029 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "265" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0254-01" ] }, { "cite": "421 U.S. 684", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 541415 ], "weight": 4, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/421/0684-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 527, "char_count": 10485, "ocr_confidence": 0.67, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.827696748266043e-08, "percentile": 0.30372427118337786 }, "sha256": "d6a7f6f87e18e753284d3b44bd57411d2469c1ae9b50c94eb12176ebcc1c3d9f", "simhash": "1:814a74ab3fe79228", "word_count": 1768 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:52.366891+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. EDWARD HILL" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant first contends the court erred in permitting the county medical examiner to testify concerning the cause of the decedent\u2019s death. He argues that the doctor presented by the State was not qualified to state his opinion as to the cause of death because he was not found to be an expert, he did not personally perform the autopsy on the victim in order to obtain personal knowledge, and he was not asked a proper hypothetical question.\nThe qualification of an expert is normally addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and\n\u201c\u2018[t]he court\u2019s findings that a witness is qualified as an expert will not be disturbed on appeal if there is evidence to show that, through study or experience, or both, he has acquired such skill that he is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on the particular subject as to which he testifies.\u2019\u201d (Citations omitted.) State v. Carey, 288 N.C. 254, 265, 218 S.E. 2d 387, 394 (1975).\nMoreover, it is not necessary for the court to make a specific finding when the defendant objects to the witness\u2019s qualification. If the evidence indicates that the witness is qualified, the court\u2019s admission of his testimony is presumed to be such a finding. State v. Jenerett, 281 N.C. 81, 187 S.E. 2d 735 (1972); State v. Carey, supra. In the case at bar, there was ample evidence to support such a finding. This assignment of error is therefore overruled.\nDefendant next contends the court erred in failing to adequately define the term \u201ccorroborative evidence.\u201d He contends the jury was unduly misled and confused as a result. In State v. Hardee, 6 N.C. App. 147, 150, 169 S.E. 2d 533, 536 (1969) this Court said:\n\u201cDefendant\u2019s mere assertion that the jury probably did not know the meaning of the word [corroborative] is clearly insufficient to show prejudicial error.\u201d\nAlthough the court\u2019s instruction in defining the term \u201ccorroborative\u201d was incomplete, we think it was not prejudicial.\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the court erred in denying the defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit cannot be sustained.\n\u201cUpon the defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit in a criminal action, the question for the court is whether there is substantial evidence of each essential element of the offense charged, or of a lesser offense included therein, and of the defendant\u2019s being the perpetrator of such offense. If so, the motion is properly denied.\u201d (Citations omitted.) State v. Vestal, 278 N.C. 561, 567, 180 S.E. 2d 755, 759 (1971).\nIn the instant case the evidence shows that both defendant and deceased had been out drinking; that they were arguing; that defendant asked deceased to go to bed with him and she replied that \u201cshe won\u2019t never going to bed with him no more\u201d; that witnesses heard a shot; that defendant told them \u201ccome see what I did to Chris\u201d; and that Christine died as a result of the gunshot wound. This evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State, was amply sufficient to require submission of the case to the jury, and defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit was properly denied. See State v. Rigsbee, 285 N.C. 708, 208 S.E. 2d 656 (1974); State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E. 2d 476 (1971).\nIn defendant\u2019s final assignment of error, he contends the court erred in its charge to the jury in several respects. He first contends the court should have defined the term \u201ccircumstantial evidence.\u201d We feel, however, that the court correctly instructed the jury as to the burden and quantum of proof required for conviction, and, absent a request for special instructions, the court was not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence. State v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207 (1947); State v. Candler, 25 N.C. App. 318, 212 S.E. 2d 901 (1975).\nThe defendant next contends the court erred in making the following charge:\n\u201c . . . [T]he law implies that the killing was unlawful and that it was done with malice and if nothing else appears, the defendant would be guilty of second degree murder.\u201d\nDefendant argues that such instruction fails to require the State to prove each and every element of the offense as required by Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 44 L.Ed. 2d 508, 95 S.Ct. 1881 (1975). In its interpretation of Mullaney, supra, our Court in State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 651, 220 S.E. 2d 575, 589 (1975), said:\n\u201c[T]he State must bear the burden throughout the trial of proving each element of the crime charged including, where applicable, malice and unlawfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision permits the state to rely on mandatory presumptions of malice and unlawfulness upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant Intentionally inflicted a wound upon the deceased with a deadly weapon which proximately resulted in death. If, after the mandatory presumptions are raised, there is no evidence of a heat of passion killing on sudden provocation and no evidence that the killing was in self-defense, Mullaney permits and our law requires the jury to be instructed that defendant must be convicted of murder in the second degree. If, on the other hand, there is evidence in the case of all the elements of heat of passion on sudden provocation the mandatory presumption of malice disappears but the logical inferences from the facts proved remain in the case to be weighed against this evidence. If upon considering all the evidence, including the inferences and the evidence of heat of passion, the jury is left with a reasonable doubt as to the existence of malice it must find the defendant not guilty of murder in the second degree. ...\u201d\nWe think the instruction in the case at bar was adequate. However, even if we assume, arguendo, that the instruction was erroneous, it was harmless, as the defendant was not found guilty of second degree murder.\nFinally, defendant argues that the judge erred by instructing the jury on involuntary manslaughter since there was no evidence to support such a conviction. He contends that the State\u2019s evidence showed second degree murder and that his evidence showed accidental shooting. We have reviewed the evidence, however, and find that there was evidence the defendant had been drinking; that he knew the gun was \u201cfunny and dangerous\u201d; that he knew the safety was broken; and that he admitted firing the shot that mortally wounded the deceased. We therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence showing a wanton or reckless use of a firearm for the trial judge to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter.\nWe have carefully examined defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MARTIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Association Attorney Ben G. Irons, for the State.", "Farris, Thomas and Farris, by Robert A. Farris, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDWARD HILL\nNo. 767SC679\n(Filed 2 February 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 51 \u2014 failure to find witness expert \u2014 finding presumed from testimony\nIt is not necessary for the court to make a specific finding that a witness is qualified as an expert when the defendant objects to the witness\u2019s qualification; however, if the evidence indicates that the witness is qualified, the court\u2019s admission of his testimony is presumed to be such a finding.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 21 \u2014 death by shooting \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nEvidence in a homicide case was sufficient to be submitted to the jury where it tended to show that both defendant and deceased had been out drinking; they were arguing; defendant asked deceased to go to bed with him but she refused; witnesses heard a shot; defendant told them to \u201ccome see what I did to [deceased]\u201d; and deceased died as a result of a gunshot wound.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 112\u2014 instructions on circumstantial evidence \u2014 request required\nAbsent a request for special instructions, the court was not required to instruct the jury as to how it should view circumstantial evidence in a homicide case.\n4. Homicide \u00a7 26\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 instruction proper\nThe trial court\u2019s instruction in a homicide case that \u201cthe law implies that the killing was unlawful and that it was done with malice and if nothing else appears, the defendant would be guilty of second degree murder\u201d did not fail to require the State to prove each and every element of the offense as required by Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684.\n5. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 death by shooting \u2014 involuntary manslaughter \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThere was sufficient evidence showing a wanton or reckless use of a firearm for the trial judge to charge the jury on involuntary manslaughter where the evidence tended to show that defendant had been drinking; he knew the gun was \u201cfunny and dangerous\u201d; he knew the safety was broken; and he admitted firing the shot that mortally wounded deceased.\nAppeal by defendant from Cowper, Judge. Judgment entered 19 March 1976 in Superior Court, Wilson County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 January 1977.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment with the first degree murder of Christine Manning on 18 December 1975. He was placed on trial for second degree murder or any lesser included offense. The defendant pleaded not guilty.\nState\u2019s evidence tended to show that Christine Manning, Corneleus Turner, Josephine Manning, George Sanders, and the defendant all lived together in a house; that defendant and Christine had been drinking and were arguing on the night of 14 December 1975; that several of the others heard a shot from the room occupied by defendant and Christine; that defendant came out and told the others to see what he had done; that the others entered the room and found Christine bleeding and a rifle lying on the floor; that a .22 rifle was subsequently seized from the room; and that Christine died on 18 December from a gunshot wound to her neck.\nDefendant testified that there had been no argument between him and Christine and that the gun went off accidentally while he was cleaning it.\nIn rebuttal, State presented evidence tending to show that defendant had told the police three different versions of his story: that the rifle discharged when it fell to the floor; that the rifle discharged when he threw it into the corner of the room; and that the rifle discharged while he was cleaning it.\nThe jury returned a verdict finding the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter whereupon the defendant was sentenced to not less than three nor more than five years in the Department of Correction.\nThe defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Association Attorney Ben G. Irons, for the State.\nFarris, Thomas and Farris, by Robert A. Farris, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0261-01", "first_page_order": 289, "last_page_order": 293 }