{ "id": 8625817, "name": "STATE v. JIM M. ENSLEY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ensley", "decision_date": "1947-12-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "271", "last_page": "273", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "228 N.C. 271" } ], "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": "186 S. E., 488", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N. C., 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626361 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0362-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630609 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0537-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 312, "char_count": 3943, "ocr_confidence": 0.474, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.207966869300525e-08, "percentile": 0.3286413609442095 }, "sha256": "24c92777b50a74ca67571fc89a21eaa255837ce1d175da8d9d4bb84cfa58fe27", "simhash": "1:ce12725cb2d6d36d", "word_count": 681 }, "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. JIM M. ENSLEY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WiNBORNE, J.\nThe assignments of error brought up on this appeal, upon careful consideration, fail to show prejudicial error.\n1. Exception is taken to the admission of evidence offered as dying declarations of deceased. The wife of deceased visited him at the hospital between 11:30 and 12 o\u2019clock the night he was shot. She testified: \u201cWhen I saw him ... he was laying there with his eyes closed and I stood there from three to five minutes and he didn\u2019t open his eyes . . . He said, \u2018Well, Honey, it looks like I am going to leave you . . . Take care of the little one.\u2019\n\u201cAfter he made the statement that I just related to you, I asked him who shot him and he said he didn\u2019t know. He described him to me. He said he didn\u2019t know his name, \u2014 the name of the man who shot him but he said he was a short, stout man with a mustache.\n\u201cI asked him why he shot him and he said he didn\u2019t know. I said, \u201cHe wouldn\u2019t have shot you for nothing. You must have said or done something.\u2019 He said \u2018I swear, Honey, I didn\u2019t say a word to him.\u2019 \u201d\nDefendant excepted to denial of each of his motions to strike the parts embraced in the last two paragraphs.\nThe witness further testified that she stayed a little while longer and told him good-bye and left and that he died about twenty minutes after she left.\nThe rule for the admission of dying declarations is well settled. The declarant at the time he makes the statement must be in actual danger of impending death, and in full apprehension of such danger, and death must ensue. S. v. Bright, 215 N. C., 537, 2 S. E. (2d), 541, and cases cited. See also S. v. Stewart, 210 N. C., 362, 186 S. E., 488.\nTested by this rule, the statement of deceased clearly shows that he was at the time fully apprehensive of the actual danger of death. The evidence shows that he was in such danger, and death ensued.\n2. The exceptions taken to ruling of court in sustaining objections to questions asked on cross-examination of witnesses present no cause for reversible error.\n3. The several portions of the charge to which, exceptions are taken, when considered as component parts of the whole, read contextually, substantially accord with well settled principles of law, and are not of sufficient import to justify a new trial.\nIn the judgment below we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "WiNBORNE, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, \"Rhodes, and Moody for the State.", "John II. Coolc, R. Glenn Cobb, and James R. Nance for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JIM M. ENSLEY.\n(Filed 10 December, 1947.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 18\u2014\nA statement is competent as a dying declaration if declarant at the time he makes the statement is in- actual danger of impending death and fully apprehends such danger, and death ensues.\n2. Same\u2014\nWhere declarant, mortally wounded, dies about 20 minutes after\u2019 making a statement revealing his full apprehension of his condition and describing his assailant and denying provocation on his part for the assault, the statement is competent as a. dying declaration.\n3. Criminal Haw \u00a7 42c\u2014\nAction of the court in limiting cross-examination of witnesses held not reversible error on defendant\u2019s exceptions.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 81c (3) \u2014\nWhere the charge construed contextually is without prejudicial error, exceptions thereto will not be sustained.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, J , at Tune Criminal Term, 1947, of CUMBERLAND.\nCriminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging that defendant \u201cfeloniously, willfully and of malice aforethought, did kill and murder one Ottis M. Draughan, against the form of the statute, etc.\u201d\nThe. Solicitor for the State announced that he was not asking for a Yerdict greater than murder in the second degree, \u2014 and defendant, through his counsel, pleaded \u201cNot Guilty.\u201d\nYerdict: Guilty of murder in the second degree.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in State\u2019s Prison for a term of not less than 10 years nor more than 15 years.\nDefendant appeals to Supreme Court, and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, \"Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nJohn II. Coolc, R. Glenn Cobb, and James R. Nance for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0271-01", "first_page_order": 317, "last_page_order": 319 }