{ "id": 8613997, "name": "STATE v. LARK ARDREY", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Ardrey", "decision_date": "1950-11-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "721", "last_page": "723", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "232 N.C. 721" } ], "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": "189 S.E. 873", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N.C. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625770 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 S.E. 630", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N.C. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628938 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 262", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653587 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "88 S.E. 501", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "171 N.C. 788", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272436 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/171/0788-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 618", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "214 N.C. 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628088 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/214/0003-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 S.E. 170", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "184 N.C. 248", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269962 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/184/0248-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 471", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8595138 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 834", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 819", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8615498 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0819-01" ] }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 435", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "197 N.C. 12", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626742 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/197/0012-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 751", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605178 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S.E. 2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627978 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0656-01" ] }, { "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 904", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "229 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 12167363 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/229/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 921", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629354 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 738", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613591 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 S.E. 2d 563", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 N.C. 244", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629190 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0244-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 153", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626916 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0153-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 455, "char_count": 7235, "ocr_confidence": 0.495, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.571869096250807e-07, "percentile": 0.9474511834473748 }, "sha256": "6e841c6652bd6ba220aaee62923af277ccc3ebcd45cab01886401e8c60c1f934", "simhash": "1:b5a9d26d593f98ca", "word_count": 1269 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "JohNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. LARK ARDREY." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nIn a charge covering fourteen pages of the record, the court nowhere tells the jury what verdicts are permissible under the evidence depending upon the variant facts as they may find them to be. Nor is there any suggestion of the lesser degrees of the crime charged, except that of an assault with a deadly weapon. Indeed, in respect of the permissible verdicts, only the contentions of the parties are given, ending with the following paragraphs, which fairly epitomize the whole charge:\n\u201cThe State insists and contends that you should convict the defendant, in each case, of assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death \u2014 or if you do not find him guilty of that offense, then, in any event, the State insists and contends, you should find him guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, in each case.\n\u201cThe defendant insists and contends that your verdict should be not guilty, as to the charges in both cases \u2014 first, that your verdict should be not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury not resulting in death, and also not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon.\n\u201cIt is a question of fact for you; give to the State and the defendant a fair and impartial trial, and let your verdict be a fair 'determination between the State and the defendant, upon the charges contained in the Bill of Indictment.\u201d\nNot only was there no reference to the lesser degrees of the principal crime, save one, S. v. Burnette, 213 N.C. 153, 195 S.E. 356; S. v. High, 215 N.C. 244, 1 S.E. 2d 563; S. v. Bentley, 223 N.C. 563, 27 S.E. 2d 738, but the charge also fails to explain the law arising upon the facts in evidence as required by G.S. 1-180; S. v. Sutton, 230 N.C. 244, 52 S.E. 2d 921; S. v. Fain, 229 N.C. 644, 50 S.E. 2d 904; S. v. Jackson, 228 N.C. 656, 46 S.E. 2d 858; S. v. Friddle, 223 N.C. 258, 25 S.E. 2d 751; Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N.C. 12, 147 S.E. 435; Wilson v. Wilson, 190 N.C. 819, 130 S.E. 834; Nichols v. Fibre Co., 190 N.C. 1, 128 S.E. 471; Bowen v. Schnibben, 184 N.C. 248, 114 S.E. 170. In S. v. Friddle, supra, Barnhill, J., says: \u201cThe chief object contemplated in tbe charge is to \u25a0explain the law of the ease, to point out the essentials to be proved on the \u2022one side and on the other, and to bring into view the relation of the particular evidence adduced to the particular issue involved.\u201d\nIt is provided by G.S. 1-180, rewritten, Chap. 107, S.L. 1949, that in jury trials, the judge \u201cshall declare and explain the law arising on -the evidence given in the case,\u201d and this without expressing any opinion upon the facts. Thompson v. Angel, 214 N.C. 3, 197 S.E. 618; S. v. Jackson, supra; S. v. Merrick, 171 N.C. 788, 88 S.E. 501. In interpreting this .statute the authoritative decisions are to the effect that it \u201cconfers upon litigants a substantial legal right and calls for instructions as to the law upon all substantial features of the case\u201d; and further, that the requirements of the statute \u201care not met by a general statement of legal principles which bear more or less directly, but not with absolute directness, upon the \u25a0issues made by the evidence.\u201d Williams v. Coach Co., 197 N.C. 12, 147 S.E. 435; S. v. Groves, 121 N.C. 563, 28 S.E. 262. \u201cThe statement of the general principles of law, without an application to the specific facts involved in the issue, is not a compliance with the provisions of the statute.\u201d Nichols v. Fibre Co., supra.\nThe purport of the decisions may be gleaned from the following ex-\u2022eerpts: \u201cThe failure of the court to instruct the jury on substantive features of the case arising on the evidence is prejudicial. This is true \u25a0even though there is no request for special instruction to that effect.\u201d Spencer v. Brown, 214 N.C. 114, 198 S.E. 630. \u201cOn the substantive features of the ease arising on the evidence, the judge is required to give \u25a0correct charge concerning it.\u201d School District v. Alamance County, 211 N.C. 213, 189 S.E. 873. \u201cA judge in his charge to the jury should present every substantial and essential feature of the ease embraced within the issue and arising on the evidence, and this without any special prayer \u25a0for instructions to that effect.\u201d S. v. Merrick, supra. \u201cWhen the evidence is susceptible of several interpretations a failure to give instructions which declare and explain the law in its application to the several phases of the evidence is held for reversible error.\u201d Williams v. Coach Co., supra.\nThere are other exceptions appearing on the record worthy of consideration, however as they are not likely to occur on the further hearing, we pretermit them now.\nThe defendant is entitled to another jury. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.\nJohNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Rhodes for the State.", "Broclc Barleley for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. LARK ARDREY.\n(Filed 29 November, 1950.)\nX. Assault \u00a7 14c: Criminal Law \u00a7 53g\u2014\nWhere in a prosecution for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury not resulting in death, verdicts of guilt of less degrees of the crime are permissible under the evidence dependent upon the variant facts as the jury may find them to be, the failure of the court to submit the question of defendant\u2019s guilt of such less degrees is erroneous and constitutes a failure to explain the law arising upon the facts in evidence as required by G.S. 1-180.\n3. Criminal Daw \u00a7 53d\u2014\nThe court is required to charge the jury as to the law upon all substantial features of the case arising upon the evidence, and this without special request. G.S. 1-180.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Phillips, J., July Term, 1950, of Mecklen-HURG.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with \u25a0assaults on Bill Baucom and E. T. Baucom with a deadly weapon, with intent to kill, inflicting serious injury, not resulting in death.\nBy consent, the two indictments were heard together and tried as different counts in the same bill, as they both arose out of the same state