{
  "id": 8626723,
  "name": "STATE v. EARL THOMAS PETTIFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Pettiford",
  "decision_date": "1954-01-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "304",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "239 N.C. 301"
    }
  ],
  "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": "74 S.E. 2d 39",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 N.C. 138",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 S.E. 164",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 N.C. 550",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11271431
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/149/0550-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608606
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 81",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 348",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619264
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0348-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 526",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 532",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625188
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0532-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "34 S.E. 2d 142",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 N.C. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607682
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/225/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S.E. 2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "235 N.C. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622300
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/235/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 752",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630459
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0752-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "198 N.C. 79",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8597675
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/198/0079-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 S.E. 832",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 N.C. 1005",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8662436
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/132/1005-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N.C. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697571
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0523-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 398,
    "char_count": 6582,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.471,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5132244675605432e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6679422236585995
    },
    "sha256": "d0ed410f312a1fd13d65f446be241a741fe08aa73ecbf31f329602f1be321312",
    "simhash": "1:5622cce5b2cc64a1",
    "word_count": 1146
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:51:12.847603+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. EARL THOMAS PETTIFORD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Johnson, J.\nThe defendant places chief stress on his exceptions (1) to the refusal of the court to submit to the jury the issue of self-defense, and (2) to the failure of the court to charge as to one\u2019s right to remove a trespasser from his home.\nThere is no evidence in the record upon which to base a reasonable inference that the defendant in firing the blast was acting within the permissive bounds of the principles of law governing the rights of a person to fight in self-defense or in. defense of his family or home. See S. v. Matthews, 78 N.C. 523; S. v. Barrett, 132 N.C. 1005, 43 S.E. 832; S. v. Glenn, 198 N.C. 79, 150 S.E. 663; S. v. Bryant, 213 N.C. 752, 197 S.E. 530.\nNor does the record disclose any evidence which brings into focus the defendant\u2019s legal rights in respect to the removal of a trespasser, as applicable in the law of self-defense. There is no. evidence that Jasper Petti-ford was ever asked to leave the defendant\u2019s home, or that Otis Cameron was asked to leave on the occasion of his second visit. According to the defendant\u2019s evidence, both visitors were invited into his house by a member of his household. Following this, the defendant asked them to be seated. On this record, they had no intimation from the defendant that they were not welcome until they were fired upon from a dark room. The court rightly refrained from discussing the principles of law respecting the eviction of a trespasser. See S. v. Goodson, 235 N.C. 177, 69 S.E. 2d 242; S. v. Spruill, 225 N.C. 356, 34 S.E. 2d 142; S. v. Roddey, 219 N.C. 532, 14 S.E. 2d 526.\nSimilarly the court properly refused to submit the issue of self-defense. S. v. Deaton, 226 N.C. 348, 38 S.E. 2d 81; S. v. Davis, 223 N.C. 381, 26 S.E. 2d 869; S. v. Dunlap, 149 N.C. 550, 63 S.E. 164.\nWe have examined the rest of the defendant\u2019s assignments of error and find them to be without substantial merit. Prejudicial error, as distinguished from harmless error (S. v. Rainey, 236 N.C. 138, 74 S.E. 2d 39), has not been made to appear. The verdict and judgment below will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Johnson, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.",
      "D. Emerson Scarborough for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. EARL THOMAS PETTIFORD.\n(Filed 15 January, 1954.)\nAssault \u00a7\u00a7 9a, 14b \u2014 Evidence held not to require submission of issue of self-defense to the jury.\nThe evidence favorable to defendant tended to show that after an altercation at defendant\u2019s house defendant told the prosecuting witness to leave and not return, that sometime later the prosecuting witness returned in company with defendant\u2019s cousin, that they knocked on the door and were admitted by defendant\u2019s sister-in-law, that they asked where defendant was, that defendant called from the bedroom \u201cYou all have a seat, I will be in there after a while,\u201d whereupon prosecuting witness pushed defendant\u2019s wife aside and both lie and his companion went to the bedroom door where, without further exchange of words, they were fired upon by the defendant from within. There was no evidence that the prosecuting witness or his companion were, armed. Held: The evidence fails to show that defendant was acting within the permissive bounds of the principles of self-defense or defense of family or home, or facts sufficient to invoke the right of defendant to eject a trespasser as applicable to the law of self-defense, and therefore it was not error for the court to fail to charge on these principles or submit the issue of self-defense to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from Morris, J., and a jury, at April Term, 1953, of PERSON.\nCriminal prosecution tried on appeal from County Recorder\u2019s Court on a warrant charging the defendant with assault with a deadly weapon upon one Jasper Pettiford.\nThe evidence of the State discloses that late on a Sunday afternoon the defendant met State\u2019s witness Otis C.ameron at a service station and asked Cameron to carry him borne. Cameron did so, and on arriving at the defendant\u2019s borne was given a drink of whiskey. Shortly thereafter the defendant borrowed Cameron\u2019s ear and went to a nearby grocery store. Cameron remained at the home with the defendant\u2019s wife and her sister. When the defendant returned his wife accused Cameron of making an improper proposal'to her. The defendant asked Cameron if this was true. Cameron denied it, and according to his testimony there was no argument or ill-will engendered by the incident. Cameron testified: \u201cWe didn\u2019t have any words about it; ... he didn\u2019t tell me to leave; he didn\u2019t tell me not to come back to his house.\u201d But shortly afterwards Cameron was given another drink and he then left.\nAfter leaving the house, Cameron met Jasper Pettiford, a cousin of the defendant, and they decided to return to the defendant\u2019s home for a drink. They did so, and according to the witness Jasper Pettiford, they knocked on the door and the defendant\u2019s wife invited them in. They entered and as this witness reached the middle of the front room, the defendant fired with a shotgun from the darkness of an adjoining bedroom. Cameron was in front; he had just asked the defendant\u2019s wife where the defendant was and she had said he was in the other room. The shot was fired just as Cameron started into the other room, and both State\u2019s witnesses testified there was no argument or further exchange of words between them and the defendant before the shot was fired. Both Cameron and Jasper Pettiford were wounded in the legs by the blast.\nThe defendant did not go upon the stand. His wife, testifying in his behalf, stated that when Cameron went to her home the first time that afternoon be made an improper proposal to ber while, ber husband was away at the store. When be returned, she told him about it, and be ordered Cameron \u201cto get out of bis bouse and not come back . . . any more.\u201d Cameron left immediately. She stated that an hour or so later she beard a knock on the door. Her sister answered it and opened the door. Cameron and Jasper Pettiford came in. Jasper asked where ber husband was. The defendant answered from the bedroom: \u201cYou all have a seat, I will be in there after a while.\u201d Whereupon, Cameron pushed ber aside and both be and Jasper went on \u201cin the bedroom, door . . . and that\u2019s when they got shot.\u201d She said ber husband \u201cdidn\u2019t give Otis Cameron a drink that day.\u201d\nThere was no evidence indicating that Cameron or Jasper were armed at the time of the shooting.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From judgment pronounced, imposing penal servitude of twelve months, the defendant appealed, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nD. Emerson Scarborough for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 345,
  "last_page_order": 348
}