{ "id": 8551072, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROY LEE EDWARDS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edwards", "decision_date": "1970-05-27", "docket_number": "No. 707SC230", "first_page": "296", "last_page": "298", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "8 N.C. App. 296" } ], "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": "17 S.E. 2d 658", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "220 N.C. 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11306271 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/220/0530-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 S.E. 2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627123 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 892", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "250 N.C. 595", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625339 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/250/0595-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 519", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 770", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617272 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0770-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S.E. 617", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N.C. 637", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271909 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0637-01" ] }, { "cite": "112 S.E. 2d 756", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617694 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "59" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 447", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560458 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0157-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 414, "char_count": 5815, "ocr_confidence": 0.601, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08, "percentile": 0.4140069556178758 }, "sha256": "3fb9ad289c470500ccff4f060189e3912df0597101792b63111f7f9d4ffa5785", "simhash": "1:f31344522c4b1102", "word_count": 1041 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:36:14.673474+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "MallaRD, C.J., and MoRRis, J., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROY LEE EDWARDS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Geaham, J.\nDefendant contends that the court erred in overruling his motion for judgment of nonsuit made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and renewed at the close of all the evidence.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that deceased died from a blow to the back of the head suffered when he was struck with a shovel by defendant on 24 September 1969. The incident occurred in the yard of the house where defendant and deceased lived and shared a room. Several witnesses testified for the State that defendant came from inside the house carrying the shovel and attacked the deceased who was armed with an open \u201chawk-bill knife\u201d and a stick. One witness described what transpired as follows: \u201cWhen Edwards [defendant] came out the door with the shovel, he went straight down the steps and Buddy [deceased] was getting up off the porch. Willie Ruffin [deceased] was backing back and after he picked up the stick and Roy [defendant] was coming up on him with the shovel and beating him with the shovel, he said, \u2018Please don\u2019t beat me with the shovel.\u2019 Roy said, \u2018I am going to kill your damned \u2014 anyhow.\u2019 And so he kept on hitting him \u2018til the last lick \u2014 he knocked him out flat. All this time, Buddy Ruffin was standing up there with his hand up. ...\u201d\nThe theory of defendant\u2019s defense was that he administered the fatal blow while exercising his right of self-defense. He testified as follows:\n\u201cI got home that day after 7:00 in the evening. Willie Gray was sitting on the edge of the porch when I walked up. I spoke to him and he told me \u2018You are am-f---.I am \u25a0going to cut your throat.\u2019 I said what did I do to him. He said, \u2018You heard what I said.\u2019 He had his hawkbill knife. I saw it and told him to go ahead on and leave me alone. That is when he \u2022stood up and I went around and got the shovel. It was sitting around beside the house. That is when he swung at me and I swung at him. We wound up out there in the street. He swung at me two or three times but didn\u2019t ever cut me. I swung at him with the shovel and missed him the first time. The next time, I hit him on the leg. He swung again and I hit him on the shoulder the next time. * * * The last time he swung, when I swung at the shovel (sic), I hit him beside the head, the last time.\u201d\nWe find the evidence sufficient to raise the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of second degree murder and to support the jury verdict finding defendant guilty of manslaughter. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant also assigns as error various portions of the court\u2019s charge to the jury including the following:\n\u201cIf one who is fighting in self-defense uses more force than is reasonably necessary under the circumstances for his protection and he takes the life of another while so doing, he is guilty of manslaughter.\u201d\nThis assignment of error must be sustained. Self-defense is based on necessity, real or apparent. State v. Jennings, 276 N.C. 157, 171 S.E. 2d 447, and cases therein cited. The instructions excepted to are erroneous in that they fail to charge that defendant could use such force as was reasonably necessary or apparently necessary. \u201c[Ojne may fight in self-defense and may use more force than is actually necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm, if he believes it to be necessary and has a reasonable ground for the belief.\u201d State v. Francis, 252 N.C. 57, 59, 112 S.E. 2d 756. (Emphasis added). In the case of State v. Johnson, 184 N.C. 637, 113 S.E. 617, the Supreme Court said:\n\u201cWhether there was any actual necessity for killing the deceased in order to save his own life, or to prevent great bodily harm to him, makes no difference, provided, at the time, the prisoner believed, and had reason to believe, that from the facts and circumstances as they then appeared to him he was about to 'be killed, or to suffer some enormous bodily harm.\u201d\nIt is true that the judge in this case did, in another part of his charge, give the correct instruction. However, \u201c[a]n erroneous instruction upon a material aspect of the case is not cured by the fact that in other portions of the charge the law is correctly stated.\u201d State v. Ellerbe, 223 N.C. 770, 28 S.E. 2d 519. See also: State v. Jennings, supra; State v. Fowler, 250 N.C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892; State v. Isley, 221 N.C. 213, 19 S.E. 2d 875; State v. Floyd, 220 N.C. 530, 17 S.E. 2d 658.\nWe do not rule on the other assignments of error since these questions may not recur in a new trial.\nNew trial.\nMallaRD, C.J., and MoRRis, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Geaham, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, by Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, Robert G. Webb, Trial Attorney, and Howard P. Saiisky, Staff Attorney, for the State.", "Farris and Thomas by Robert A. Farris for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROY LEE EDWARDS\nNo. 707SC230\n(Filed 27 May 1970)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 21\u2014 second-degree murder \u2014 use of shovel \u2014 nonsuit\nEvidence of defendant\u2019s guilt of second-degree murder by use of a shovel was sufficient to go to the jury.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 9\u2014 self-defense\nSelf-defense is based on necessity, real or apparent.\n3. Homicide \u00a7 28\u2014 instruction on self-defense \u2014 omission of apparent necessity\nAn instruction on self-defense that the defendant could use no more force than was reasonably necessary under the circumstances for his protection is erroneous in omitting the element of apparent necessity, and the error is not cured by correct instructions on this point in another part of the charge.\nAppeal by defendant from May, S.J., October 1969 Criminal Session of WilsoN County Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried for murder in the second degree under a bill of indictment charging him with the capital offense of murder. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter and from judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than twelve nor more than fifteen years defendant appealed.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, by Harrison Lewis, Deputy Attorney General, Robert G. Webb, Trial Attorney, and Howard P. Saiisky, Staff Attorney, for the State.\nFarris and Thomas by Robert A. Farris for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0296-01", "first_page_order": 320, "last_page_order": 322 }