{ "id": 8550690, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE THOMAS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Thomas", "decision_date": "1969-07-23", "docket_number": "No. 699SC344", "first_page": "448", "last_page": "452", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "5 N.C. App. 448" } ], "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": "34 A.L.R. 2d 451", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "93 S.E. 2d 443", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 368", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219621 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0368-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 S.E. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 160", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629163 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0160-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S.E. 2d 483", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 634", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631851 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0634-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 S.E. 316", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272346 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608161 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0215-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 533, "char_count": 9748, "ocr_confidence": 0.561, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0189641752386648e-07, "percentile": 0.544676735979588 }, "sha256": "207e7cffa47f04ac8cce6cbed989b000bdb2efab66eab1808e50bf6d9e9a7e14", "simhash": "1:4020546d77a46a27", "word_count": 1688 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Campbell and MoeRis. JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE THOMAS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BROCK, J.\nIn support of his contention that he acted in self-defense, defendant offered evidence of specific threats of violence towards defendant by deceased, and of specific acts and threats of violence by deceased towards defendant\u2019s daughter (wife of deceased).\nIn rebuttal the State offered the testimony of Sparkwood Bur-well, employer of deceased, and of Leonard Perry, Jr., a brother-in-law of deceased. By the testimony of these witnesses the State sought to show that deceased was a peaceful and nonviolent man.\nAfter the witness Sparkwood Burwell had stated that he did not know anything about deceased\u2019s reputation in the community, he was allowed, over defendant\u2019s objection, to answer questions as follows:\n\u201cQ. Did you ever know him to show any temper or \u2014\n\u201cA. I said presently he was, during the time he was my employee. He was working for me at the time this happened and he has never shown me no one second of violence or being a vicious man, don\u2019t he couldn\u2019t have worked for me.\n\u201cQ. Have you ever seen him display any violence towards his family?\n\u201cA. No Sir.\u201d\nIt not having been established that the witness had ever observed the deceased except while on the job, it seems obvious that the witness was not qualified to answer the questions, had they otherwise been proper inquiries. It w'ould seem manifest that even a vicious and violent man would not likely display such propensities to or in the presence of his employer.\nAlso, over defendant\u2019s objection, the witness Leonard Perry, Jr. was allowed to testify concerning the peaceful conduct of deceased on an occasion in 1961 when threatened by the son of defendant, and of which defendant had no knowledge.\nDefendant\u2019s exceptions and assignments of error to the allowance of these questions and answers are well taken.\nOn the question of the reasonableness of defendant\u2019s apprehension of death or bodily harm upon his plea that he acted in self-defense, defendant was entitled to offer evidence that deceased was a violent and dangerous man, if such reputation was known to defendant. State v. Morgan, 245 N.C. 215, 95 S.E. 2d 507; State v. Blackwell, 162 N.C. 672, 78 S.E. 316; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 106. Also, for the same purpose, defendant was entitled to offer evidence of threats against defendant by deceased which were communicated to defendant. State v. Rice, 222 N.C. 634, 24 S.E. 2d 483; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 162a.\nWhere the defendant in a prosecution for homicide makes an attack on the character of the deceased and thereby puts it in issue, the State may, in rebuttal, support its case by introducing evidence that deceased bore the reputation of being a man of peace and quiet. Such evidence by the State must be in rebuttal and limited to the general reputation of the deceased for peace and quiet. State v. Champion, 222 N.C. 160, 22 S.E. 2d 232; Nance v. Fike, 244 N.C. 368, 93 S.E. 2d 443; Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 106; Annot., 34 A.L.R. 2d 451 (1954).\nThe State was allowed impermissible latitude in this case.\nNew trial.\nCampbell and MoeRis. JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BROCK, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, and Claude W. Harris, Trial Attorney, for the State.", "Sterling G. Gilliam, and James C. Cooper, Jr., for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE THOMAS\nNo. 699SC344\n(Filed 23 July 1969)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 19\u2014 evidence competent on question of self-defense \u2014 deceased\u2019s reputation for peace and quiet\nIn support of Ms plea of self-defense, defendant in a homicide prosecution offered evidence of specific threats of violence towards defendant by deceased, and of specific acts and threats of violence by deceased towards defendant\u2019s daughter, the wife of deceased. Meld: It was error to allow the State in rebuttal to offer testimony by deceased\u2019s employer that deceased never exhibited violent or vicious behavior during the employment and to offer evidence of the peaceful conduct of deceased on an occasion when threatened by the son of defendant, and of which defendant had no knowledge.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 19\u2014 evidence on self-defense \u2014 deceased as a violent man\nOn the question of the reasonableness of defendant\u2019s apprehension of death or bodily harm upon his plea that he acted in self-defense, defendant was entitled to offer evidence that deceased was a violent and dangerous man, if such reputation was known to defendant, and to offer evidence of threats against defendant by deceased which were communicated to defendant.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 19\u2014 evidence on self-defense \u2014 deceased\u2019s reputation for peace and quiet\nWhere the defendant in a homicide prosecution makes an attack on the character of the deceased and thereby puts it in issue, the State in rebuttal may support its case by introducing evidence that deceased bore the reputation of being a man of peace and quiet, but such evidence must be in rebuttal and limited to the general reputation of deceased for peace and quiet.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr, J., 16 December 1968 Session, YaNCE Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the capital felony of murder of his son-in-law, Walter Burwell. When the case was called for trial the solicitor for the State announced that he would not try the defendant on the first degree charge, but would ask for a conviction of second degree murder or manslaughter. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty.\nEvidence for the State was limited to that of L. B. Faulkner, Vance County Sheriff, who talked to the defendant and visited the scene. The sheriff recalled that the night of 12 July 1968 was a very dark night and that a sprinkle of rain was starting to fall at about the time of the homicide which he estimated to be about 9:30 p.m. It was stipulated that about that time Walter Burwell, son-in-law of the defendant, died from a rifle bullet wound that penetrated the left-front shoulder of Burwell at an angle horizontal to the ground, with the body standing erect, and the bullet ranged downward into the heart. The defendant admitted that he fired the .22 rifle, an old gun he had had for some time.\nOn the night in question, a message was received from Clementine Burwell, daughter of the deceased, by William Odell Thomas (William), son of the defendant, at the defendant\u2019s home near Franklin County line. Clementine asked her uncle and grandfather to come to her house because her daddy was beating on her mother again and almost choking her to death. William, who had been sick, and the defendant jumped into the car and rode some eight miles to the home of Burwell, which was about one mile north of Henderson on Highway 39. Defendant took his rifle with him and loaded it with one shell while on the way to town. After going up a steep bank in front of the house, defendant stepped on the porch and was met by Clementine who told him her daddy had almost choked her mother to death. Meanwhile, William had gone around back of the house and met Walter about 50 feet from the house walking toward it. When William asked, \u201cWalter, what in the world is going on?\u201d Walter replied, \u201cNone of your damned business,\u201d and then continued on toward the house. William kept walking on toward Walter Burwell\u2019s mother\u2019s house (which was behind Burwell\u2019s own home) looking for his sister, Beatrice.\nBy this time; defendant had come around back of the house and was standing near a screened-in porch attached to the rear of the house. Walter came toward him and defendant asked, \u201cWalter, what on earth is wrong here tonight?\u201d Walter replied, \u201cNone of your g. d. business,\u201d according to defendant, and then he immediately struck defendant in the forehead and knocked him back against the screen at the corner of the house. Defendant said \u201cWhen he hit me, I fell and caught with my left hand up in the screen wire, and when I straightened up, I shot. I don\u2019t know which way I shot or nothing. I just fired the rifle . . . because I was afraid of him.\u201d\nThe sheriff\u2019s version of what was told him by defendant on direct examination by the solicitor was that Burwell struck him with his hand or his fist, he wasn\u2019t sure, and as soon as he straightened up, he took his rifle and shot him. The sheriff\u2019s notes did not reveal any profanity used against defendant by deceased.\nAfter deceased was shot, William and defendant drove straight to George Bullock\u2019s cab stand which was on the edge of Henderson near Highway 39 North and asked Bullock to call the rescue squad to help Walter and take him to the hospital. Defendant said he thought he would do more harm than good by moving Walter or trying to help him. Defendant did not call the police station.\nOn this night Walter Burwell had assaulted his wife and threatened her life and she had had to run from the house with her children to escape her husband. She had gone to the police station to take out a warrant when her father arrived at her home.\nAfter the defendant told Bullock to send the rescue squad for Walter, he told him that he was going to his home to see whether his daughter Beatrice had gotten to his house. Some difficulty was had with the car in which defendant was riding and he asked his son, Joe, to call Mr. Bullock and see if Walter had been carried to the hospital. Joe made the call and reported Walter was dead. Defendant then went back to George Bullock\u2019s where he met Sheriff Faulkner and Deputy Sheriff Mims in a few minutes.\nAt the time of his death, deceased was 40 years of age, 5'11\" tall, and weighed 175 to 180 pounds.\nAt time of shooting, defendant was 71 years of age and suffered from high blood pressure and arthritis.\nFrom a verdict of guilty of voluntary manslaughter, and judgment of imprisonment for a period of not less than eight nor more than twelve years, defendant appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, and Claude W. Harris, Trial Attorney, for the State.\nSterling G. Gilliam, and James C. Cooper, Jr., for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0448-01", "first_page_order": 470, "last_page_order": 474 }