{
  "id": 8554271,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVE CHANEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chaney",
  "decision_date": "1970-11-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 7017SC476",
  "first_page": "731",
  "last_page": "733",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 731"
    }
  ],
  "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": "277 N.C. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562497,
        8562467,
        8562600,
        8562574,
        8562548,
        8562524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/277/0113-02",
        "/nc/277/0113-01",
        "/nc/277/0113-06",
        "/nc/277/0113-05",
        "/nc/277/0113-04",
        "/nc/277/0113-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 82",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 N.C. App. 198",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550145
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/8/0198-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 S.E. 2d 895",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 54",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628203
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0054-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 54",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 140",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0140-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3785,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.506,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.294421492303427e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6206927508128852
    },
    "sha256": "50028fae266e171bbab6ce199bbb5188214a6cf1fca7a0572a283dd21e6f4b69",
    "simhash": "1:dd5efbe8563b157c",
    "word_count": 618
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:50:15.842675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVE CHANEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BROCK, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial judge failed to Instruct the jury upon defendant\u2019s right to repel a nonfelonious assault; but confined defendant\u2019s right of self-defense to repelling an assault which would likely cause death or great bodily harm. Defendant cites State v. Fletcher, 268 N.C. 140, 150 S.E. 2d 54; State v. Anderson, 230 N.C. 54, 51 S.E. 2d 895; and State v. Barnette, 8 N.C. App. 198, 174 S.E. 2d 82 (certiorari denied 277 N.C. 113) in support of this assignment of error.\nThe evidence that defendant acted in defense of an assault upon him by prosecuting witness with a knife could constitute evidence that defendant acted to repel a felonious assault, or that he acted to repel a nonfelonious assault.\n\u201cIn the absence of an intent to kill, a person may fight in Ms own self-defense to protect himself from bodily injury or offensive physical contact, even though not put in actual or apparent danger of death or great bodily harm.\u201d 1 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Assault and Battery, \u00a7 8, p. 301. The jury found defendant guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, thereby establishing that he acted without intent to kill. Therefore, it was prejudicial error that the trial court failed to instruct the jury upon defendant\u2019s right to repel a nonfelonious assault. State v. Fletcher, supra; State v. Anderson, supra.\nWhen the evidence requires a charge of self-defense, it would be the better practice for the trial court to instruct upon defendant\u2019s right to repel a nonfelonious assault in all cases where the evidence justifies submitting the charges against defendant to the jury for a possible finding of guilty of assault without intent to kill.\nFor error in the charge as indicated above there must be a\nNew trial.\nJudges Morris and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BROCK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Melvin for the State.",
      "Gwyn, Gwyn & Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. STEVE CHANEY\nNo. 7017SC476\n(Filed 18 November 1970)\nAssault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 8, 15\u2014 felonious assault \u2014 instruction on self-defense\nIn a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury not resulting in death, the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on defendant\u2019s right to repel a nonfelonious assault, where defendant offered evidence that he was the victim of a nonfelonious assault and where the State\u2019s evidence would support a verdict of defendant\u2019s guilt of assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill.\nOn certiorari to review trial before Collier, Judge of Superior Court, 20 January 1969 Session, ROCKINGHAM Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried upon a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging him with an assault upon one David Wayne Morton with a deadly weapon with intent to kill, inflicting serious bodily injury not resulting in death.\nState\u2019s evidence tended to show that on Sunday afternoon, 20 October 1968, several persons gathered at Charlie Young Creek near Mayodan in Rockingham County to \u201cmake music.\u201d There was some consumption of alcoholic beverages and there was some \u201cmusic.\u201d The prosecuting witness, Morton, drove up to join the group, and, without any words or provoking conduct, defendant struck prosecuting witness on the head and face with a \u201cpop bottle\u201d causing serious lacerations.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that prosecuting witness, Morton, advanced on defendant with a knife and defendant struck him with the \u201cpop bottle\u201d in self-defense.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon, a misdemeanor.\nWe allowed certiorari for failure of defendant\u2019s trial attorney to perfect his appeal. Trial counsel was discharged and defendant is now represented by different counsel appointed by the trial court.\nAttorney General Morgan by Assistant Attorney General Melvin for the State.\nGwyn, Gwyn & Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0731-01",
  "first_page_order": 755,
  "last_page_order": 757
}