{ "id": 8547265, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORGAN JESSIE LEE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lee", "decision_date": "1977-09-21", "docket_number": "No. 774SC304", "first_page": "106", "last_page": "109", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "34 N.C. App. 106" } ], "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": "156 S.E. 2d 679", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564082 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 349", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605472 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "65 S.E. 2d 304", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 741", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616635 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0741-01" ] }, { "cite": "235 S.E. 2d 193", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "196" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.C. 711", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572704 ], "year": 1977, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "715" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/292/0711-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 415", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566019 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S.E. 284", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N.C. 701", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652036 ], "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0701-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 421, "char_count": 8374, "ocr_confidence": 0.832, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.970969936485476e-08, "percentile": 0.4221323328116813 }, "sha256": "ccee0285e16ea8e18c3f707403df4790ac885f4fdc5edf4fef74942bcffee455", "simhash": "1:a225e235623cda6e", "word_count": 1396 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judge Arnold concurs." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORGAN JESSIE LEE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to take the case to the jury. We find the evidence insufficient and hold that defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit should have been granted.\nWhile it is the duty of the jury to determine the weight and credibility of the evidence, it is the court\u2019s duty, in the first instance, to determine whether sufficient evidence has been presented to permit the jury to pass upon its weight and credibility. State v. Brackville, 106 N.C. 701, 11 S.E. 284 (1890). In this case the State relied upon circumstantial evidence, but the test of the sufficiency of the evidence is the same, whether the evidence is circumstantial, direct, or both. State v. McKnight, 279 N.C. 148, 181 S.E. 2d 415 (1971). \u201cTo withstand the motion for nonsuit, there must be substantial evidence of all material elements of the offense.\u201d State v. Furr, 292 N.C. 711, 715, 235 S.E. 2d 193, 196 (1977). In determining whether there is substantial evidence, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and every reasonable inference arising from the evidence must be made in favor of the State. State v. Furr, supra.\nViewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence is sufficient to show that Brenda Jones died by virtue of a criminal act, but the evidence is insufficient to permit a jury to find that the criminal act was committed by the defendant. The evidence that defendant had beaten and threatened to kill the deceased provides strong evidence of motive, but evidence of motive, standing alone, is insufficient to support a conviction. State v. Furr, supra; State v. Jarrell, 233 N.C. 741, 65 S.E. 2d 304 (1951); State v. Hendrick, 232 N.C. 447, 61 S.E. 2d 349 (1950). A neighbor heard two shots near defendant\u2019s trailer, but there was no evidence that either the defendant or the deceased was at the trailer at the time. In fact, there was no evidence to show where the deceased met her death, and the only evidence fixing the time of death was that death must have occurred sometime between Thursday morning, 26 August, when a neighbor saw Brenda Jones alive, and Saturday evening, 28 August, when the body was discovered. The State introduced in evidence a .25 caliber pistol, State\u2019s Exhibit 1, but presented no direct evidence to connect this weapon with the defendant. Only by indulging in speculation and assuming facts not in evidence can the inference be drawn that State\u2019s Exhibit 1 was ever at any time in defendant\u2019s possession. Neither was there any evidence that State\u2019s Exhibit 1 was used to kill the deceased. State\u2019s Exhibit 7, the fired cartridge casing, could not be conclusively connected to State\u2019s Exhibit 1, but even if the connection could have been made, there was no evidence as to where State\u2019s Exhibit 7 had come from or what connection, if any, it may have had with the death of the decedent. Finally, the State introduced evidence that the defendant himself had been shot, but nothing in the record connects that incident to the shooting of Brenda Jones.\nThe evidence, viewed as a whole, raises a strong suspicion of guilt, but a suspicion or conjecture is insufficient to support a conviction. The evidence was not inconsistent with defendant\u2019s innocence, and the motion for nonsuit should have been granted. State v. Furr, supra; State v. Cutler, 271 N.C. 379, 156 S.E. 2d 679 (1967); State v. Jarrell, supra; State v. Brackville, supra.\nReversed.\nJudge Arnold concurs.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." }, { "text": "Judge MARTIN\ndissenting.\nIn my opinion, the evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support its verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.", "type": "dissent", "author": "Judge MARTIN" } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Peeler Smith for the State.", "Holland & Poole, P.A., by R. Maurice Holland for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORGAN JESSIE LEE\nNo. 774SC304\n(Filed 21 September 1977)\nHomicide \u00a7 21.4\u2014 defendant as perpetrator \u2014 insufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was insufficient to support a verdict finding defendant guilty of second degree murder where it tended to show that defendant and deceased lived together in a trailer park; deceased\u2019s body was found a few miles from the home of defendant\u2019s father in another county; two gunshot wounds caused deceased\u2019s death; defendant had beaten and threatened to kill deceased; a neighbor heard two shots near defendant\u2019s trailer during the night before deceased\u2019s body was found; defendant possessed a .25 caliber pistol prior to deceased\u2019s death and had a small pistol when he went to his father\u2019s home on the day deceased\u2019s body was found; defendant\u2019s sister gave officers a .25 caliber pistol when they went to the home of defendant\u2019s father; two lead fragments taken from deceased\u2019s body were unsuitable for identification; and defendant had himself been shot prior to the time deceased\u2019s body was found.\nJudge Martin dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from Webb, Judge. Judgment entered 3 February 1977 in Superior Court, SAMPSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 September 1977.\nDefendant was tried on his plea of not guilty to an indictment charging him with the first degree murder of Brenda Jones.\nAccording to the evidence presented by the State, the body of Brenda Jones, the deceased, was discovered in a clearing located \u201ca few miles\u201d from the home of defendant\u2019s father in Sampson County. The body was found sometime after 8:00 p.m. on Saturday, 28 August, and the parties stipulated that two gunshot wounds caused her death. However, the officers found no spent cartridges or other evidence in the area where the body was lying.\nThe defendant had been living with the deceased in a trailer park in Fayetteville for approximately two months. Neighbors in the trailer park testified that the deceased had been beaten on two separate occasions within two weeks of her death. After the second beating, defendant admitted to one of the neighbors that he had beaten the deceased because she was having an affair. Sometime between the Thursday and Friday mornings prior to the death of Brenda Jones, defendant also told one of the neighbors that he was going to kill Brenda. On Friday night, 27 August, one of the next-door neighbors heard two shots fired outside his trailer, and the shots \u201cseemed fairly close.\u201d\nOn Saturday evening, just before the body was discovered, an officer went to the home of defendant\u2019s father, where he saw the defendant. The defendant was acting nervous and had just been shot in the right side. The defendant told the officer that the unidentified person who shot him had run away, but his father testified that he accidentally shot defendant during a \u201cscramble\u201d that occurred as a result of a \u201cmisunderstanding.\u201d Defendant was taken to a hospital where a detective from the Sheriff\u2019s Department questioned him. Defendant told the detective that he had not seen Brenda since 7:30 on Saturday morning and that she did not tell him where she was going. The detective also testified that \u201c[w]hen I asked him about Brenda, he denied knowing anything, sort of smiled and said, \u2018well, you read my rights and everything, didn\u2019t you.\u2019 \u201d\nTwo lead fragments were taken from the body of Brenda Jones, but they were unsuitable for identification. The State introduced into evidence a .25 caliber pistol, identified as State\u2019s Exhibit 1, that defendant\u2019s sister gave to the officer when he went to the home of defendant\u2019s father on Saturday evening. Defendant\u2019s father testified that the defendant had a \u201csmall pistol\u201d with him when he came home on-Saturday evening. One of defendant\u2019s neighbors from the trailer park testified that defendant had a black .25 caliber pistol with him in his trailer a few days before the death of Brenda Jones, and that the pistol was similar to State\u2019s Exhibit 1. The State introduced into evidence a fired cartridge casing, identified as State\u2019s Exhibit 7, which was found to be similar to cartridges test-fired from State\u2019s Exhibit 1. However, the State\u2019s firearms expert could not conclusively determine whether or not State\u2019s Exhibit 7 had been fired from State\u2019s Exhibit 1.\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, the defendant moved for nonsuit, and the court denied the motion. The defendant presented no evidence, and the jury found him guilty of second degree murder. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General James Peeler Smith for the State.\nHolland & Poole, P.A., by R. Maurice Holland for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0106-01", "first_page_order": 134, "last_page_order": 137 }