{
  "id": 8551798,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL \"BUBBA\" WALLACE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wallace",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7719SC1012",
  "first_page": "149",
  "last_page": "151",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 149"
    }
  ],
  "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": "432 U.S. 233",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6178254
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/432/0233-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 575",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.C. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570479
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/288/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "136 S.E. 2d 84",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 N.C. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575389
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/261/0727-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 355,
    "char_count": 5783,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059247469640122
    },
    "sha256": "066e992a70e87ef15c5cd79f7c166c84d2091cdcfd949389c15e065e7a5268e4",
    "simhash": "1:89f7f9ad3be0addb",
    "word_count": 1006
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges VAUGHN and WEBB concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL \u201cBUBBA\u201d WALLACE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nAppellant raises but one question on this appeal, whether the evidence was sufficient to take the case to the jury. Citing State v. Johnson, 261 N.C. 727, 136 S.E. 2d 84 (1964), he contends that the State\u2019s evidence and his own evidence is to the same effect and that all of the evidence tends to exculpate him. From this, he argues that his motions for dismissal should have been allowed. We do not agree.\nState v. Johnson, supra, is easily distinguishable on its facts. In that case, a murder prosecution, the State\u2019s only evidence that defendant committed the homicide was a confession which established a perfect self-defense. Circumstantial evidence corroborated this, and defendant\u2019s evidence at trial was to the same effect. Thus, in that case there was no evidence which tended to contradict or impeach the exculpatory portion of defendant\u2019s confession or her testimony at trial that she acted lawfully in self-defense.\nThe facts of the present case are quite different and bring this case within the rule that the State is not bound by the exculpatory portions of a confession which it introduces if there is other evidence which tends to throw a different light on the homicide. See State v. Hankerson, 288 N.C. 632, 220 S.E. 2d 575 (1975), rev\u2019d on other grounds, Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233, 53 L.Ed. 2d 306, 97 S.Ct. 2339 (1977). In the present case there was such evidence. There was evidence that defendant left the scene of the killing promptly after the homicide, that when he was arrested a short time later there were no marks on his body to corroborate his statement that the deceased had hit him on the head with a stick, and that a prompt search of the area failed to reveal the presence of the stick. Finally, even if the deceased had assaulted defendant in the manner described by defendant, the nature of the wound which defendant admitted he inflicted on the deceased is such as to give rise to a permissible inference that excessive force was used. In view of all of the evidence, we hold that the case was one for the jury. Since no exception was taken to the court\u2019s charge to the jury, it is presumed that the case was submitted to the jury under proper instructions.\nNo error.\nJudges VAUGHN and WEBB concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Douglas A. Johnston for the State.",
      "Koontz, Horton & Hawkins by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EARL \u201cBUBBA\u201d WALLACE\nNo. 7719SC1012\n(Filed 18 April 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 90.1\u2014 State\u2019s introduction of defendant\u2019s exculpatory statements\nThe State is not bound by the exculpatory portions of a confession which it introduces if there is other evidence which tends to throw a different light on the homicide.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 21.8\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 State\u2019s introduction of defendant\u2019s exculpatory statement\nThe evidence was sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a second degree murder case where the State introduced defendant\u2019s statement to an officer that he stabbed deceased with a knife after deceased attacked him with a stick; the State introduced further evidence that defendant left the scene of the killing promptly after it occurred, that when he was arrested a short time later there were no marks on his body to corroborate his statement that deceased had struck him with a stick, and that a prompt search of the area failed to reveal the presence of a stick; and the nature of the wound defendant inflicted on deceased was such as to give rise to a permissible inference that excessive force was used.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Collier, Judge. Judgment entered 9 August 1977 in Superior Court, CABARRUS County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 April 1978.\nDefendant was indicted for the first degree murder of Howard Richard Ford. The State elected to try defendant for second degree murder or any lesser included offense. He pled not guilty.\nThe State presented evidence to show that Ford died as result of a stab wound in the chest, and presented the testimony of a police officer that defendant admitted he inflicted the wound after Ford had hit him with a stick. Defendant testified at the trial that he stabbed Ford in the chest with his pocket knife, but testified that he did so only after Ford had committed an unprovoked assault on him and had struck him three times on the head with a stick. Defendant testified:\nI cut him with the knife one time. I was not trying to kill the man. I was trying to get him away from me.\n. . . When I stabbed him, I meant to fight my way out of that stick hitting. I guess I intended to stab him in the chest with this knife. . . .\n* * *\nI intended to stick the knife in him anywhere because he was whupping me. He was hurting me. He liked to have buckled me to my knees.\nThere was evidence that prior to the fight defendant and Ford had been life-long friends, that at the time of his death Ford had .19 percent of alcohol in his blood, and that defendant had been drinking. The stabbing occurred about four o\u2019clock on the afternoon of 7 May 1976 in the yard of the Jim Little house, a house which had \u201ca reputation in the community as being a bootlegger house.\u201d Defendant was arrested about 4:15 on the same afternoon on the street near his home, which was about five to seven blocks from the place where the stabbing occurred.\nThere was also evidence that when defendant was arrested shortly after the killing, the officers did not observe any cuts or bruises on or about his body or face. The officers searched for but were unable to find the stick with which defendant said Ford had struck him. There were no eyewitnesses to the stabbing.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter. From judgment imposing a prison sentence, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Douglas A. Johnston for the State.\nKoontz, Horton & Hawkins by Clarence E. Horton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0149-01",
  "first_page_order": 177,
  "last_page_order": 179
}
