{
  "id": 8547819,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WILLIAMS SPRINGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Springs",
  "decision_date": "1977-04-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7626SC782",
  "first_page": "61",
  "last_page": "65",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 N.C. App. 61"
    }
  ],
  "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": "180 S.E. 2d 794",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 682",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561403
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0682-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "864-65"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559179
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "547"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 861",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 552",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556882
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0552-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "205 S.E. 2d 628",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557100
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0608-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 S.E. 2d 668",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 N.C. App. 111",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547813
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/31/0111-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 149",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 142",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570160
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0142-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 S.E. 2d 718",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "719"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 N.C. App. 421",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8556308
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "423"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/21/0421-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 483,
    "char_count": 11065,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.658,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.3320264564462336e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9177419224055148
    },
    "sha256": "9c3e320ab81119a72cbc062a95d7c8578f92be1029046ec94892e0ef7322e313",
    "simhash": "1:5f7cc3296e359e76",
    "word_count": 1871
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:09:28.190456+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Martin concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WILLIAMS SPRINGS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nIn his charge to the jury, Judge Baley instructed as to assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury as follows:\n\u201cThe fourth thing that the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt is that the defendant inflicted serious injury, and you have heard testimony with respect to the injuries which the witness Brooks received, and I charge you that those would constitute serious injuries.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nJudge Baley also submitted the lesser offense of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and charged that\n\u201c . . . for you to find the defendant guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, the State must prove three things: . . . And third, that the defendant inflicted serious injury, and the injuries sustained that sent him, to the hospital, if you believe those to be the facts and find beyond a reasonable doubt that that was true, would constitute serious injuries.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nDefendant contends that the trial judge erred in instructing the jury that Brooks\u2019 injuries were serious injuries as a matter of law. We disagree.\nThe uncontradicted evidence was that the victim remained unconscious for three days, was hospitalized in Memorial Hospital for eight days, and lost two ribs and a iung as the result of the shotgun blast. There can be no possible doubt that the injuries received were serious. Where, as here, the evidence with respect to the injuries is not contradicted and the injuries could not conceivably be considered less than serious, we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the court may instruct the jury that if they believe the evidence as to injuries, they will find that there was serious injury. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant contends that the judge erred in failing to instruct as to the legal definition of assault. Again, we disagree. In State v. Hickman, 21 N.C. App. 421, 423, 204 S.E. 2d 718, 719 (1974), we ordered a new trial because\n\u201c[a]t no place in the charge did the trial judge instruct the jury as to what the term \u2018assault\u2019 means or what constitutes an assault. An assault is a legal term with which jurors are not apt to be familiar. We think it incumbent upon the trial judge to define or otherwise explain to a jury\" the meaning of the legal term \u2018assault\u2019.\u201d (Emphasis supplied.)\nThough the charge in the present case did not contain a definition of assault, the judge did instruct that the State was required to prove \u201c . . . that the defendant assaulted Leonard Brooks by intentionally and without justification or excuse shooting Leonard Brooks in the upper left chest with a shotgun. ...\u201d (Emphasis supplied.) We believe that this language was sufficient to \u201cotherwise explain\u201d an assault to the jury so that they had no question as to the meaning of the term. This explanation was given the jury in the charge on assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury in the instructions on the elements of the crime and the mandate. It was similarly repeated in the instructions on assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. The charge was sufficient, and this assignment is overruled.\nThe trial judge submitted three possible verdicts to the jury: guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury; guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury; and not guilty. Defendant argues that the judge erred in failing also to submit the lesser offenses of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill; assault with a deadly weapon; and assault inflicting serious injuries. We disagree. The trial court is not required to submit the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of lesser offenses of the crime charged where there is no evidence from which the jury could find that the lesser offense was committed. State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E. 2d 149 (1971); State v. Williams, 31 N.C. App. 111, 228 S.E. 2d 668 (1976). Here, the evidence showed that the prosecuting witness had been shot in the chest by a shotgun at close range; that the victim was unconscious for three days and was hospitalized for eight days; and that he lost two ribs and a lung as a result of the shooting. On these facts, defendant was not entitled to a submission of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill or assault with a deadly weapon. State v. Turner, 21 N.C. App. 608, 205 S.E. 2d 628 (1974); State v. Brown, 21 N.C. App. 552, 204 S.E. 2d 861 (1974). Moreover, since the evidence that defendant used a deadly weapon was uncontradicted, he was not entitled to a charge on assault inflicting serious injury. This assignment is overruled.\nAt trial, Charlotte Police Officer L. D. Blakeney was permitted to testify, over objection, that during the course of his investigation he asked bystanders what had occurred and that after hearing their responses, he placed defendant under arrest. Defendant maintains that the testimony was hearsay and should have been excluded. Again, we cannot agree. \u201cEvidence, oral or written, it called hearsay when its probative force depends, in whole or in part, upon the competency and credibility of some person other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it.\u201d State v. Robbins, 275 N.C. 537, 547, 169 S.E. 2d 858, 864-65 (1969); 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, \u00a7 138, p. 458. Clearly, the testimony here objected to cannot be classified as hearsay since it consisted only of what the officer did, and not of statements made to him by third persons. Accordingly, it was not error for the trial judge to admit the testimony.\nIn his final assignment of error, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury that the indictment did not constitute evidence against defendant. However, the record reveals that defendant did not request the court for such an instruction. It is well settled in this State that where a defendant desires greater elaboration in the charge on a particular aspect of the case, he must make a special request therefor. Otherwise the court is not required to so charge the jury. State v. Boyd, 278 N.C. 682, 180 S.E. 2d 794 (1971). We have carefully reviewed the judge\u2019s charge in its entirety and hold that it contains a full and fair summary of the evidence and an accurate statement of the law applicable thereto.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Martin concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ann Reed, for the State.",
      "Public Defender Michael S. Scofield, by Assistant Public Defender Marie A. Michael, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN WILLIAMS SPRINGS\nNo. 7626SC782\n(Filed 20 April 1977)\n1. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15.3\u2014 serious injury as a matter of law \u2014 when instruction is proper\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury where the evidence with respect to the injuries is not contradicted and the injuries could not conceivably be considered less than serious, the court may instruct the jury that, if they believe the evidence as to injuries, they will find that there was serious injury; therefore, where the uncontradicted evidence in this assault case tended to show that the victim remained unconscious for three days, was hospitalized for eight days, and lost two ribs and a lung as a result of defendant\u2019s shotgun blast, the trial court properly instructed the jury that the injuries were serious injuries as a matter of law.\n2. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15.2 \u2014 failure to define assault \u2014 explanation sufficient\nThough the trial court\u2019s charge in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury did not include a definition of assault, the judge did instruct that the State was required to prove \u201c . . . that the defendant assaulted [the victim] by intentionally and without justification or excuse shooting [the victim] in the upper left chest with a shotgun . . . , \u201d and this language was sufficient to explain an assault to the jury so that they, had no question as to the meaning of the term.\n3. Assault and Battery \u00a7 16.1\u2014 assault with deadly weapon with intent to ' kill inflicting serious injury \u2014 lesser offenses \u2014 submission unnecessary\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury where the evidence showed that the prosecuting witness had been shot in the chest by a shotgun at close range, that he was unconscious for three days and hospitalized for eight, and that he lost two ribs and a lung as a result of the shooting, defendant was not entitled to have submitted to the jury the lesser offenses of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, assault with a deadly weapon, or assault inflicting serious injury.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 73.2 \u2014 officer\u2019s testimony \u2014 no hearsay\nTestimony by a police officer that during the course of his investigation of the assault charged he asked bystanders what had occurred and that after hearing their responses, he placed defendant under arrest was not inadmissible as hearsay, since it consisted only of what the officer did, and not of statements made to him by third persons.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 119\u2014 jury instruction not requested \u2014 failure to give not error\nThe trial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury that the indictment did not constitute evidence against defendant, absent a request by defendant for such an instruction.\nAppeal by defendant from Baley, Special Judge. Judgment entered 22 April 1976 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 March 1977.\nDefendant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury and entered a plea of not guilty to the charge. He was convicted by a jury and upon that verdict judgment was entered sentencing him to imprisonment for a term of 16 to 20 years.\nThe State introduced evidence which tended to show the following: Between 7:00 and 7:30 p.m. on the evening of 14 December 1975, Leonard Brooks, the victim of the alleged assault, entered his car and began to leave his house when he saw defendant\u2019s car approaching. Defendant said he wanted to speak with Brooks, whereupon Brooks pulled over to the side of the road. Again, defendant said he wanted to see Brooks, so Brooks got out of his car. Defendant told Brooks \u201cLet me hold of (sic) some money.\u201d Brooks replied that he did not have any money, but defendant persisted, \u201cYes, you got some money.\u201d Defendant then snatched the keys from Brooks\u2019 car, kept them, and drove away in his own car.\nBrooks went to defendant\u2019s house and waited on the porch for defendant\u2019s return. When defendant arrived, he told Brooks \u201cI\u2019ll give it to you when I come back.\u201d Defendant then went into the house and came out carrying a shotgun. As soon as defendant stepped onto the porch, he shot Brooks in the chest. Brooks lost consciousness for three days and remained in the hospital for eight days.\nDefendant offered no evidence in his behalf. Other relevant facts are set out in the opinion below.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ann Reed, for the State.\nPublic Defender Michael S. Scofield, by Assistant Public Defender Marie A. Michael, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0061-01",
  "first_page_order": 89,
  "last_page_order": 93
}
