{ "id": 8523820, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESLIE IRVING BUNN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Bunn", "decision_date": "1984-01-17", "docket_number": "No. 8325SC473", "first_page": "187", "last_page": "191", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 N.C. App. 187" } ], "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": "245 S.E. 2d 812", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "37 N.C. App. 234", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8551952 ], "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/37/0234-01" ] }, { "cite": "303 S.E. 2d 804", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "308 N.C. 736", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 4710863 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/308/0736-01" ] }, { "cite": "300 S.E. 2d 375", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "and State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736, 303 S.E. 2d 804 (1983), construing Rule 10(b)(1), N.C. Rules of App. Proc." } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565416 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "and State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736, 303 S.E. 2d 804 (1983), construing Rule 10(b)(1), N.C. Rules of App. Proc." } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "296 S.E. 2d 649", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "307 N.C. 62", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560587 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/307/0062-01" ] }, { "cite": "277 S.E. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "529" }, { "page": "529" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571310 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "19" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "281 S.E. 2d 655", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "303 N.C. 316", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573194, 8573261, 8573298, 8573236, 8573214 ], "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/303/0316-01", "/nc/303/0316-04", "/nc/303/0316-05", "/nc/303/0316-03", "/nc/303/0316-02" ] }, { "cite": "276 S.E. 2d 499", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "501" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "51 N.C. App. 460", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 2643211 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "463" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/51/0460-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 495, "char_count": 9184, "ocr_confidence": 0.811, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08, "percentile": 0.3236263967513164 }, "sha256": "0fca9de0d162bbddb0ae362b2738a870a525bff4e952b4b508406737f0d1a990", "simhash": "1:4301cc76fe5f6ddc", "word_count": 1508 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Eagles concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESLIE IRVING BUNN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRASWELL, Judge.\nWayne Hampton emerged from a fight in the Two Spot Lounge with multiple stab wounds in the left shoulder and in the right side. His injuries were so substantial that the first treating doctor called upon the services of an experienced surgeon. Leslie Irving Bunn, defendant, was convicted of the felony of making an assault upon Hampton with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury, and was given the presumptive sentence of three years with a recommendation for work release and payment of medical expenses. Defendant appeals.\nWhile the defendant purports to raise five questions in his brief, and laboriously argues them, we find no merit to any of his assignments of error. The labels to his questions concern (1) \u201cadmission, exclusion, etc., of evidence,\u201d (2) a failure to \u201cdismiss the charges,\u201d (3) error in jury instructions, (4) \u201cerrors in his sentencing of defendant,\u201d and (5) violation of his constitutional rights.\nUnder the fifth \u201cquestion\u201d counsel recites the time-honored phrases \u201cdue process of law\u201d and \u201claw of the land\u201d as having been violated, and alleges, \u201c[t]his Question involves all Assignments of Error.\u201d Having read and considered the argument we hold this to be in the nature of a \u201cbroadside\u201d assignment of error and find it to be without merit. Compare, State v. Fennell, 51 N.C. App. 460, 463, 276 S.E. 2d 499, 501, further review denied, 303 N.C. 316, 281 S.E. 2d 655 (1981); State v. McCoy, 303 N.C. 1, 19, 277 S.E. 2d 515, 529 (1981).\nThe first three questions presented can best be summarized as a product of the same shotgunning approach as the fifth question above. By his resort to shotgunning, the appellant has scattered numerous pellets of legal generalities in an attempt to strike targets of admission and exclusion of evidence and sufficiency of evidence; and by shooting at jury instructions without having made any objection at trial, the appellant has made an ineffectual presentation of error to this Court. State v. McCoy, supra, at 19, 277 S.E. 2d at 529.\nQuestion one encompasses four assignments of error, one of which deals with the defendant\u2019s objections to the admissions of evidence which were actually sustained, but to which the judge gave no cautionary instructions. Other subjects include cross-examination (the court properly denied repetitious cross-examination), self-defense (exclusion of what another witness \u201cthought\u201d), and exclusion of evidence of medical costs to defendant (not the victim), for his own injuries.\nUnder the second question, the motion of defendant \u201cto dismiss the charges\u201d was properly denied. The State\u2019s evidence clearly established each element of the one offense submitted to the jury. The evidence shows two altercations. Hampton was the victim on each occasion. During the first altercation, the State\u2019s evidence showed Hampton was struck by a stick, whereas defendant\u2019s evidence showed the defendant only hit Hampton with his hand. The defendant then left the club. Upon the defendant\u2019s later return into the club and after an exchange of words, the defendant\u2019s evidence showed he hit Hampton with a mop handle. As they fought, the defendant pulled his knife and stabbed and cut Hampton. Subsequently, the judge included instructions on self-defense, which was favorable to the defendant under the facts. The defendant\u2019s argument to dismiss is not supported by the facts. The State met its burden. See State v. Earnhardt, 307 N.C. 62, 296 S.E. 2d 649 (1982).\nIt is the judge\u2019s jury instructions which form the third question in the brief. Under this, defendant discusses what he has named as Assignment of Error No. 7. At one point the allegation is: \u201cThe error is the ruling of His Honor that he would not submit an issue of self-defense to the jury.\u201d Four paragraphs later the allegation is: \u201cAssignment of Error 7 ... is to Judge\u2019s failure to submit issues of fact for jury determination as to whether there was a deadly weapon, whether there were serious injuries, and whether Bunn acted in self-defense.\u201d It is difficult to perceive how counsel could put forth such a question. Any plain reading of the judge\u2019s charge, which is set out in full in the record, shows seven paragraphs on self-defense, plus an inclusion of the subject in the final mandate. If the defendant\u2019s argument can be read to infer that it was error not to submit self-defense as a separate verdict, or issue, on the verdict sheet for the jury to separately answer, then we hold this contention to be foreign to our criminal law and procedure. Never is it required to have a jury answer on a written verdict sheet whether they separately find each element proven or each defense unproven. Our statute, G.S. 15A-1235(a) requires only a verdict of guilty or not guilty.\nAlthough the defendant now seeks to inject numerous exceptions into the record as to portions of the judge\u2019s charge to the jury, the record shows conclusively that none were taken at trial.\nThe COURT: Out of the presence of the jury I will inquire whether any corrections or additions to the charge which I gave to the jury.\nMr. Pearce: None for the State.\nMr. BURKHIMER: None from the defendant.\nThe COURT: Let the record show out of the presence of the jury the Court inquired of the State and the defendant whether any additions or corrections of the charge given to the jury and both parties replied, \u201cNone.\u201d\nWe are aware of State v. Odom, 307 N.C. 655, 300 S.E. 2d 375 (1983) (and State v. Black, 308 N.C. 736, 303 S.E. 2d 804 (1983), construing Rule 10(b)(1), N.C. Rules of App. Proc.), and hold that the trial and record before us does not require such application of the rules. We have examined the remaining assignments of error relating to jury instructions and find all of them to be without merit.\nAs to the alleged sentencing errors under question four, defendant contends that the judge wrongly considered the victim\u2019s hospital bills as aggravating factors and that he failed to consider evidence of mitigating factors. By raising this question the defendant completely overlooks the plain words of the State\u2019s Fair Sentencing Act. Here, the presumptive sentence was imposed. It is only when the actual sentence deviates from the presumption that the law requires a judge to find either mitigating or aggravating factors. G.S. 15A-1340.4(b).\nAfter making a recommendation for work release, which itself was an exercise of judicial discretion favorable to defendant, the court recommended restitution of $971.85 in medical expenses, but coupled this by adding \u201cor any remaining amount of monies not covered by Mr. Hampton\u2019s medical insurance.\u201d The evidence disclosed that Mr. Hampton did have medical insurance, and that probably 80% of the total amount would be paid by insurance, if any was so paid. The series of medical bills supporting the amount were present at court. Ample evidence supported the court\u2019s recommendation. G.S. 148-33.2(c); State v. Killian, 37 N.C. App. 234, 245 S.E. 2d 812 (1978).\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Eagles concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRASWELL, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Daniel F. McLawhom for the State.", "W. P. Burkhimer for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESLIE IRVING BUNN\nNo. 8325SC473\n(Filed 17 January 1984)\n1. Criminal Law 8 161\u2014 \u201cbroadside\u201d assignments ol error \u2014 ineffectual\nDefendant\u2019s \u201cbroadside\u201d assignment of error and \u201cshotgunning\u201d approach to questions were both ineffectual and without merit.\n2. Assault and Battery 8 14.5\u2014 assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill\u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe evidence was sufficient to support a verdict of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill where the evidence showed two altercations with the same victim, the first in which the victim was struck by a stick, and the second in which defendant pulled his knife and stabbed and cut the victim.\n3. Assault and Battery 8 15.6\u2014 instructions on self-defense \u2014proper\nThe trial judge properly submitted the issue of self-defense to the jury where the record showed seven paragraphs on self-defense, plus an inclusion of the subject in the final mandate, and it was not error to fail to submit self-defense as a separate verdict, or issue, on the verdict sheet for the jury to separately answer since never is it required to have a jury answer on a written verdict sheet whether they separately found each element proven or each defense unproven. G.S. 15A-1235(a).\n4. Criminal Law 8 138\u2014 presumptive sentence \u2014 no aggravating or mitigating factors required\nIt is only when the actual sentence deviates from the presumptive that the law requires a judge to find either mitigating or aggravating factors. G.S. 15A-1340.4(b).\n5. Criminal Law 8 142.3\u2014 recommendation for work release \u2014restitution\u2014evidence supporting recommendations\nAmple evidence supported the court\u2019s recommendations that defendant be available for work release and that defendant pay restitution of $971.85 in medical expenses \u201cor any remaining amount of monies not covered by [the victim\u2019s] medical insurance.\u201d G.S. 148-33.2(c).\nAPPEAL by defendant from Beaty, Judge. Judgment entered 9 December 1982 in the Superior Court, CALDWELL County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 December 1983.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney General Daniel F. McLawhom for the State.\nW. P. Burkhimer for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0187-01", "first_page_order": 219, "last_page_order": 223 }