{
  "id": 8554956,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SANFORD WILLIAM HIGGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Higgs",
  "decision_date": "1979-07-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 799SC34",
  "first_page": "501",
  "last_page": "503",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 501"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 S.E. 2d 221",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 51",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569769
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0051-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 S.E. 2d 371",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 66",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564608
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0066-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 S.E. 2d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571126
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3358,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.79,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2060023576664122
    },
    "sha256": "9079a3c6c7a9900c2c23b34fe7bea2a326fdb379a8df82c9bdec0a237ec5fe43",
    "simhash": "1:a20380aa642e2069",
    "word_count": 568
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:09.609845+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MITCHELL concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SANFORD WILLIAM HIGGS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nWe reverse the superior court for failing to submit to the jury the charge of voluntary manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to have the different permissible verdicts arising on the evidence presented to the jury under proper instructions. The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such crime of lesser degree was committed. The presence of such evidence is the determinative factor. See State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E. 2d 149 (1971); State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E. 2d 235 (1971), and 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 115, p. 610 and cases cited therein. In this case the State\u2019s evidence was in part circumstantial. There was evidence that defendant said he had shot deceased. From this the jury could infer that he had intentionally shot deceased with malice. The jury did not have to make this inference however. State v. Hodges, 296 N.C. 66, 249 S.E. 2d 371 (1978). The jury could infer that defendant intentionally shot Jack Cates which proximately caused his death, but they would not have to infer it was done with malice. This would be voluntary manslaughter. State v. Rummage, 280 N.C. 51, 185 S.E. 2d 221 (1971). There being evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, it was error not to submit this charge to the jury.\nNew trial.\nJudges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MITCHELL concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, hy Associate Attorney Christopher P. Brewer, for the State.",
      "Burke and King, hy Ronnie P. King, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. SANFORD WILLIAM HIGGS\nNo. 799SC34\n(Filed 31 July 1979)\nHomicide \u00a7 30.2\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 failure to instruct on manslaughter\nThe trial court in a second degree murder case erred in failing to submit to the jury the charge of voluntary manslaughter where evidence of defendant's statement that he shot deceased would permit an inference that he intentionally shot deceased, but the jury would not have to infer that the killing was done with malice.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Walker (Ralph), Judge. Judgment entered 18 October 1978 in Superior Court, PERSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 4 April 1979.\nThe defendant was tried for second degree murder. The State\u2019s evidence showed that defendant who is paralyzed from the waist down lived in a house with his stepfather Jack Cates. On 21 May 1978 Jack Cates was shot to death with a shotgun. Pete Slaughter, a deputy sheriff of Person County, went to the house in which defendant and Jack Cates lived and in which the body was found and started to advise defendant of his constitutional rights. Before he could complete advising defendant of his rights, the defendant said \u201cI shot him. I ain\u2019t going to tell you any damn thing else until you search the house.\u201d Frederick Mark Hurst, Jr., a special agent with the State Bureau of Investigation, testified: \u201cthe deceased had been shot from a range of not less than four feet nor more than ten feet.\u201d Defendant testified that Jack Cates was accidentally shot while they were struggling for possession of the shotgun.\nThe court submitted to the jury charges of second degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Defendant was convicted of second degree murder.\nAttorney General Edmisten, hy Associate Attorney Christopher P. Brewer, for the State.\nBurke and King, hy Ronnie P. King, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0501-01",
  "first_page_order": 529,
  "last_page_order": 531
}