{
  "id": 8622679,
  "name": "STATE v. SANFORD E. SNEAD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Snead",
  "decision_date": "1947-10-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "37",
  "last_page": "39",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "228 N.C. 37"
    }
  ],
  "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": "110 S. E., 846",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 738",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658756
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0738-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N. C., 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N. C., 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612806
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N. C., 848",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616363
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0848-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S. E., 260",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 156",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623769
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0156-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S. E., 730",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N. C., 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631612
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 421",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 686",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0686-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 S. E., 97",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 N. C., 636",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628105
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/210/0636-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 S. E., 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 N. C., 795",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659280
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/183/0795-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N. C., 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8600687
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N. C., 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623502
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0628-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N. C., 571",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622632
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0571-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 374,
    "char_count": 5308,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.479,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8435005463828784e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7224880678371596
    },
    "sha256": "53354dec324ea30e521de0bbab0b4081396e7458e70b124d5754c6adc0603f3e",
    "simhash": "1:048f950c1c922d2b",
    "word_count": 970
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:37.324265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. SANFORD E. SNEAD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, O. J.\nWe are constrained to hold the following instruction for error: \u201cIf you are not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree,- as the Court will instruct you what constitutes murder in the second degree, you would consider whether from all the facts in this case, both the State and the defendant, the defendant has offered such evidence as would reduce the crime with which he is charged to that of manslaughter. And in that case, gentlemen of the jury, the burden is upon the defendant to satisfy you from the evidence introduced by himself, or the evidence introduced by the State, or lack of evidence, that there was no malice in the killing, and thereby mitigate or reduce the crime charged to that of manslaughter.\u201d\nIn this instruction, the court seems to have overlooked, for the moment, the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, which called in question the State\u2019s evidence and required a finding by the jury that the defendant intentionally killed the deceased with a deadly weapon before the presumption of an unlawful homicide with malice could apply, S. v. Floyd, 226 N. C., 571, 39 S. E. (2d), 598, and place upon the defendant the burden of rebutting such presumption \u2014 in part, if he would reduce or mitigate the offense to manslaughter, and altogether if he would gain an acquittal. S. v. Ellison, 226 N. C., 628, 39 S. E. (2d), 824; S. v. Burrage, 223 N. C., 129, 25 S. E. (2d), 393; S. v. Benson, 183 N. C., 795, 111 S. E., 869.\nThere was no admission on the hearing that the defendant slew the ' deceased with a deadly weapon, yet he was required to handle the laboring oar in the absence of a finding by the jury that he was \u201cguilty of murder in the second degree.\u201d This was an inadvertence, or else some error has crept into the transcript. In either event, a new trial seems necessary. We must take the record as we find it. Abernethy v. Burns, 210 N. C., 636, 188 S. E., 97. It is not now subject to change or correction. S. v. Moore, 210 N. C., 686, 188 S. E., 421. It imports verity, and we are bound by it. S. v. Dee, 214 N. C., 509, 199 S. E., 730; S. v. Brown, 207 N. C., 156, 176 S. E., 260.\nThe evidence of what the defendant is alleged to have said about the killing was challenged on the hearing, and the court was in error in assuming this evidence to be true. The plea of traverse put its credibility in issue. S. v. Stone, 224 N. C., 848, 32 S. E. (2d), 651; S. v. Peterson, 225 N. C., 540, 35 S. E. (2d), 645; S. v. Davis, 223 N. C., 381, 26 S. E. (2d), 869; S. v. Singleton, 183 N. C., 738, 110 S. E., 846.\nFor error in the charge, as indicated, a new trial will be awarded.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, O. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.",
      "J. R. Young and Charles Ross for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. SANFORD E. SNEAD.\n(Filed 8 October, 1947.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 77d\u2014\nTbe record imports verity and the Supreme Court is bound thereby.\n2. Same: Homicide \u00a7 16: Criminal Law \u00a7 28\u2014\nDefendant\u2019s plea of not guilty puts the credibility of the State\u2019s evidence in issue, and where the defendant does not go upon the stand but the State introduces testimony of an alleged confession made by defendant that he killed deceased with a deadly weapon, it is error for the court to assume that the testimony is true and instruct the jury that the burden is upon defendant to rebut the presumption arising from a killing with a deadly weapon, without predicating such instruction upon a finding by the jury of the requisite facts.\nAppeal by defendant from Edmundson, Special Judge, at March Criminal Term, 1947, of HaeNett.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the murder of one Ada Massey.\nWhen the case was called for trial, the solicitor announced that he would not prosecute on the capital charge, but would ask for a verdict of murd\u00e9r in the second degree or manslaughter as the evidence might disclose. The defendant thereupon entered a plea of not guilty.\nThe record reveals that on 26 May, 1946, about the hour of 6 :00 a.m., the lifeless body of Ada Massey was found by a public officer on Broad Street in the Town of Dunn, near the Paste Board Inn. There was a deep stab wound on the left side of her chest, which apparently had been inflicted with some sharp instrument. The wound extended to the apex of the heart. A pair of scissors lay on the ground three or four inches from the dead woman\u2019s hand. The defendant had been in company with the deceased the night before. He was later heard to say, \u201cI killed Ada.\u201d\nIn an alleged confession, admitted over objection, the defendant is quoted as saying: \u201cI called Ada out (of the Paste Board Inn), and when she came out she came out with a pair of scissors in her hands and started running me. . . . She struck at me with the scissors and I cut her under the left arm; she gasped, let out a scream,.and fell. ... I cut her with the red-handle knife.\u201d\nThe defendant offered no testimony. In the court\u2019s charge to the jury, reference is made to witnesses for the defendant. However, the defendant himself did not take the witness stand.\nVerdict: Guilty of murder in the second degree.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison \u201cto serve a term of 15 to 20 years.\u201d .\nThe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Atiorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nJ. R. Young and Charles Ross for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0037-01",
  "first_page_order": 83,
  "last_page_order": 85
}