{
  "id": 8659250,
  "name": "STATE v. JOE PASOUR",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pasour",
  "decision_date": "1922-05-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "793",
  "last_page": "794",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "183 N.C. 793"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "175 N. C., 773",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662613,
        8662565
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/175/0773-02",
        "/nc/175/0773-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "155 N. C., 450",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652656
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/155/0450-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 N. C., 820",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11273107
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/150/0820-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N. C., 1005",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/1005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "134 N. C., 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N. C., 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272456
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0792-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 259,
    "char_count": 3976,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.433,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0374536040554039e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5498691236438881
    },
    "sha256": "9577d861e273079ecd7e018e6899b0d919dbd318528dce6e31680d19049484aa",
    "simhash": "1:2360467db3d92199",
    "word_count": 645
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:03:22.299745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOE PASOUR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Adams, J.\nBoth before and after he had introduced evidence, the defendant moved to dismiss the prosecution as in case of nonsuit, and duly excepted to the court\u2019s denial of his motion. The exceptions, therefore, require a consideration of the entire evidence. C. S., 4643; S. v. Killian, 173 N. C., 792. The defendant admitted that he fired the fatal, shot, but testified that he acted in self-defense. The intentional killing of a human being with a deadly weapon implies malice, and, nothing else appearing, constitutes murder in the second degree. \"When this: implication is raised by an admission or proof of the fact of killing the burden is on the defendant to show to the satisfaction, of the jury facts; and circumstances sufficient to excuse the homicide or to reduce it to-manslaughter. S. v. Capps, 134 N. C., 627; S. v. Barrett, 132 N. C., 1005; S. v. Quick, 150 N. C., 820; S. v. Yates, 155 N. C., 450; S. v. Orr, 175 N. C., 773; S. v. Brinkley, ante, 720. For these reasons the defend-, ant\u2019s own testimony necessarily forestalled his motion to dismiss the action.\nA witness for the State was permitted to testify, over the defendant\u2019s-objection, concerning statements made by the defendant\u2019s brother, Morris-Pasour, relative to certain marks or \u201cscratches\u201d on the body of the-deceased. The defendant\u2019s exception, which was duly entered, is without merit. The evidence was competent in contradiction and impeachment of Morris\u2019s preceding testimony. The other exceptions require no discussion. Dr. Wilkins properly indicated the brother that admitted the killing, and evidence as to any peculiarity of the deceased a short time before his death, so far as the record discloses, was irrelevant and remote. Besides, the proposed answer of the witness is not shown.\nUpon examination of the exceptions and the record, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Adams, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOE PASOUR.\n(Filed 3 May, 1922.)\nJL. Evidence \u2014 Nonsuit\u2014Trials\u2014Appeal and Error \u2014 Criminal Law \u2014 Statutes.\nDefendant\u2019s exceptions after he has introduced evidence, to the refusal to nonsuit the State in a criminal action, requires a consideration of the entire evidence on appeal.\n:2. Homicide \u2014 Murder\u2014Deadly Weapon \u2014 Admissions\u2014Implied Malice\u2014 Evidence \u2014 N onsuit.\nWhere the defendant on trial for homicide admits he fired the fatal shot, malice is implied, and nothing else appearing, the killing constitutes murder in the second degree, placing the burden on defendant to show to the satisfaction of the jury facts and circumstances sufficient to excuse the homicide or to reduce it to manslaughter, and defendant\u2019s motion as of nonsuit is properly disallowed.\n-'3. Homicide \u2014 Murder\u2014Evidence.\nWhere the brother of the accused on trial for a homicide has testified as to certain \u201cscratches\u201d on the body of the deceased, evidence of the State tending to contradict and impeach him is competent. '\n\u20224. Same \u2014 Appeal and Error \u2014 Unanswered Questions.\nUpon this trial for homicide the indication by the witness of the one of several brothers who had admitted killing their father was competent, and, upon the record, evidence as to any peculiarity of the deceased a short time before being killed was irrelevant and remote, and also not considered on appeal when it is not shown what the proposed answer of the witness would have been to the question asked him.\nAppeal by defendant from Bay, Jat tbe November Special Term, 1921, of GastoN.\nTbe indictment charged tbe defendant with tbe murder of Eli Pasour, bis father. Tbe State prosecuted only fo'r murder in tbe second degree \u2022or manslaughter.\nTbe jury returned a verdict for murder in tbe second \u2022degree, and from tbe judgment pronounced tbe defendant appealed.-\nThe defendant admitted that he shot and killed the deceased with a pistol, and introduced evidence tending to show self-defense. Other circumstances relevant to the exceptions are stated in the opinion.\nAttorney-General Manning and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0793-01",
  "first_page_order": 853,
  "last_page_order": 854
}