{
  "id": 8551503,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WIKE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wike",
  "decision_date": "1977-03-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7630SC649",
  "first_page": "475",
  "last_page": "478",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 475"
    }
  ],
  "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": 444,
    "char_count": 7933,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.681,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.89950402824256e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30892862865750087
    },
    "sha256": "9afe08de540cd9b2526302113ecbb84521bfaa59e932e87bb2f21fba2f984801",
    "simhash": "1:838ca1bf573996ea",
    "word_count": 1311
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:52:52.366891+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WIKE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant testified that the shooting took place on his property. The State did not introduce evidence to contradict that testimony. Nevertheless, defendant brings forward numerous exceptions because the judge would not allow him, in effect, to turn this criminal action into an action to prove his title to the lands where the shooting took place. The judge\u2019s rulings were correct and defendant\u2019s exceptions are without merit. The judge also properly instructed the jury on the law as it applies to one who, being free from fault, is attacked on his own property.\nDefendant contends that the judge did not \u201cinstruct the jury concerning the law of accidental killing as it applies to self-defense.\u201d The exceptions relating to this contention are not sustained. The judge fully declared and explained the law arising on the evidence in the case. Among other things, he told the jury that if the defendant \u201cacted properly in self-defense, he would not be guilty of any offense on which the court has or will instruct you.\u201d The court further instructed the jury that if Hines died by accident, without wrongful purpose or criminal negligence on the part of defendant, defendant would not be guilty of a crime in connection with his death.\nIn his sixth assignment of error, defendant argues that the court improperly restricted his cross-examination of Sted-man Hines\u2019 widow. On direct examination, Mrs. Hines, without objection, testified that her husband neither owned nor possessed a firearm on the date of the shootings. The couple had been married for 34 years. On cross-examination she was asked whether she and her husband lived together continuously for the six months immediately preceding that day. She responded in the affirmative. Defendant then asked her whether she and her \u201chusband were having domestic problems during that time.\u201d The sustaining of the State\u2019s objection to that question is defendant\u2019s basis of the assignment of error. We hold that the trial judge was correct when he concluded that the question was improper.\nDefendant also attempted to offer evidence of a conversation that took place in the courthouse between Hines and another lawyer in connection with the civil litigation involving defendant and Thomas Wike. Defendant contends that the evidence was not properly excluded by the \u201cDead Man\u2019s Statute.\u201d Without regard to whether it should have been excluded under that statute, it suffices to say that the subject of the conversation was totally irrelevant to the trial of this defendant and not admissible under any theory.\nDefendant\u2019s sister (as did one of his brothers) testified for the State. The sister testified that she talked with defendant a few days before the killings. Defendant told her that Thomas Wike was \u201ctearing up what he had.\u201d Defendant told her that he would, \u201cdo like Dallas\u201d and \u201cthat would keep him off.\u201d Dallas is another brother of defendant. The sister then explained, without objection, that Dallas had killed another brother, Joe. Defendant does not argue that evidence of defendant\u2019s prior threats are inadmissible. He argues, instead, that the testimony should not have been admitted because it \u201cdoes not qualify as a threat on the part of the Defendant.\u201d The weight to be given the evidence is for the jury. The jury could reasonably infer that when defendant said he was going to \u201cdo like Dallas\u201d he was suggesting that he was going to kill his brother, as did Dallas. The assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have considered all of the exceptions brought forward and the argument on appeal. We find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Claude W. Harris, for the State.",
      "Pope & Brown, P.A., by Ronald C. Brown, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WIKE\nNo. 7630SC649\n(Filed 2 March 1977)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 proof of title to land \u2014 inadmissibility in murder trial\nIn a trial of defendant for the murder of his brother with whom he was having a boundary dispute and the brother\u2019s attorney, the trial court\u2019s rulings refusing to allow defendant to turn the trial into an action to prove title to the lands where the shooting occurred were proper.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 88\u2014 cross-examination of victim\u2019s widow \u2014 domestic difficulties\nIn a homicide prosecution in which the victim\u2019s widow testified that her husband neither owned nor possessed a firearm on the date of the shooting, the trial court properly refused to allow defendant to cross-examine the widow as to whether she and the victim had been having domestic problems.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 conversation relating to civil litigation \u2014 incompetency in murder trial\nIn a prosecution of defendant for the murder of his brother and the brother\u2019s attorney, evidence of a conversation between the deceased attorney and another attorney concerning civil litigation between defendant and his brother was irrelevant and properly excluded.\n4. Homicide \u00a7 17\u2014 testimony admissible as evidence of threat\nIn a prosecution of defendant for the murder of his brother, testimony by defendant\u2019s sister that he told her he would \u201cdo like Dallas\u201d and that Dallas, a brother of defendant, had killed another brother was competent as evidence of a prior threat against the brother defendant killed.\nAppeal by defendant from Friday, Judge. Judgment entered 13 March 1976 in Superior Court, Haywood County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 January 1977.\nDefendant was tried for murder as a result of killing his brother, Thomas Wike, and his brother\u2019s lawyer, Stedman Hines.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant and Thomas Wike had been involved in a boundary dispute for a number of years. The pair lived on a mountain road in rural Swain County. The road followed a mountain stream. Defendant lived upstream from Thomas. On 10 September 1975, Sted-man Hines, Thomas and one William Gibson drove from Thomas\u2019 house and left their truck on the road near defendant\u2019s driveway. They examined the chop marks and painted blazes on trees near the road and then proceeded up a mountain between defendant\u2019s driveway and the road. None of them were armed. Hines was in front followed by Thomas with Gibson following Thomas. Defendant suddenly appeared holding a rifle. Thomas said, \u201cHello Johnny, what do you know?\u201d Defendant mumbled a reply. At that time Hines reached out to shake hands and told defendant, \u201cI\u2019m Stedman Hines, attorney from Bryson City.\u201d Defendant replied, \u201cYou are lawyer Hines\u201d and then shot Hines in the stomach. Gibson ran away but heard twelve or fifteen more shots. The bodies of Hines and Thomas were found near the scene of the shooting by the investigating officers. Both had died as a result of gunshot wounds.\nThe State also introduced physical and documentary evidence calculated to shed light on the events that occurred at the crime scene and to illustrate the testimony of its witnesses.\nDefendant testified that on the day of the killings, he had gone down to the creek to shoot snakes. He heard voices on the mountainside and thought that children were up there digging ginseng on his property. He went to investigate and saw Hines, Thomas Wike and a stranger. He had known Hines for a number of years. Thomas Wike said, \u201cWhat do you know?\u201d and defendant replied, \u201cYou know it all.\u201d Thomas Wike pointed a pistol at defendant and shot at him. Defendant then returned the fire. Hines jumped back in the bushes and was not seen again. Hines, Thomas Wike and the stranger all had guns. The stranger also shot at defendant but Hines did not. Both defendant and Thomas Wike got behind trees and continued to fire at one another. Defendant shot several times. Soon everything was quiet and defendant left the scene to summon help for the others.\nThe jury returned verdicts of guilty of voluntary manslaughter in each of the two cases and judgments imposing prison sentences were entered.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Claude W. Harris, for the State.\nPope & Brown, P.A., by Ronald C. Brown, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0475-01",
  "first_page_order": 503,
  "last_page_order": 506
}