{
  "id": 2219438,
  "name": "STATE v. BENNY MOORING",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Mooring",
  "decision_date": "1956-10-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "624",
  "last_page": "625",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "244 N.C. 624"
    }
  ],
  "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": "89 S.E. 2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 N.C. 540",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8618541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/242/0540-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 201",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 445",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0445-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 4741,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7503553295964359
    },
    "sha256": "bd49c988cf4451c20c8e79303c17664d4993fdc7e9a8a6386517ff9b826fb4bb",
    "simhash": "1:e7efc0f357ba83fb",
    "word_count": 846
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:53:24.689887+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Johnson, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. BENNY MOORING."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe State introduced evidence: the defendant none. Defendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit. However, defendant falls into error in contending that the State\u2019s evidence made out for him a complete defense. Of course, if it had, the case should be reversed. S. v. Tolbert, 240 N.C. 445, 82 S.E. 2d 201.\nOn the night of 28 June 1955 Walter Clark and three companions, all marines stationed at Camp Lejeune, were traveling in a car from Jacksonville to Kinston, and stopped at defendant\u2019s filling station and store to buy gasoline. This station and store had connected with it a dwelling \u25a0compartment, in which defendant, his father and defendant\u2019s wife lived. All four went into the store. They met inside two marines in civilian clothes. Clark had been drinking beer before his arrival. In the store \u25a0they bought and drank several \u201cshots\u201d of whiskey at 50 cents a \u201cshot.\u201d \u25a0Clark was \u201cpretty high\u201d from drinking, \u201cbut not to where I didn\u2019t .actually know what I was doing.\u201d About 30 minutes after their arrival, \u25a0all the marines left. Clark was the last one to go out. Clark testified: '\u201cI started out and the next thing I remember something caught me in the leg. I went down. . . . While we were in the place of business, there were no harsh words, argument-or anything in the way of disorderly conduct on my part, or anything else, that I know of. ... I was shot in the leg. ... I heard that I made an effort to knock on the door or attempt to get back in, but I can\u2019t say truthfully. I do not have an opinion as to how far I was from the door to this place at the time I fell on the ground after being shot.\u201d On cross-examination Clark testified: \u201cI can\u2019t swear this defendant shot me. ... I don\u2019t know what I was doing at the time I was struck by a bullet, except I was heading out of the place.\u201d\nDaniel Monroe, a companion of Clark, testified in substance: Clark was the last marine to come out of the store. He turned around, and started knocking on the door. A person inside asked what he wanted, and he replied he forgot his change. Clark kept pounding on the door, and the lights inside went out. When the first shot was fired Clark was still pounding on the door. After the first shot was fired Clark started staggering away, and when the second shot was fired he fell. Monroe also testified: \u201cClark was knocking on the door. I hollered at him and he started toward my car. Another shot was fired, and he went to the ground.\u201d Clark fell about 10 yards from the door.\nDefendant told Thomas H. Sutton, a deputy sheriff of Lenoir County, he shot Clark under these circumstances: \u201cHe said they were beating, slamming and cursing on the front of the house like they were going to break in; he said, T went to the back, came around and asked them to leave and one of them started for me. I didn\u2019t take no sight at all, I just pulled the trigger; I did not intend to hit the man.\u2019 \u201d\nThe State\u2019s evidence was presented by the three witnesses above mentioned. The State offered in evidence the statement of the defendant, but that did not prevent the State from showing that the facts were different. S. v. Phelps, 242 N.C. 540, 89 S.E. 2d 132.\nThe State\u2019s evidence does not make out a complete defense for the defendant, and was sufficient to carry the case to the jury.\nDefendant\u2019s other assignments of error, except those that are formal, are to the charge and the judge\u2019s failure to charge. A close study of the evidence and the charge shows that the judge fairly and accurately declared and explained the law arising on the evidence given in the case, and these assignments of error are without merit.\nThe evidence was conflicting. After a fair trial the defendant was convicted by a jury of his peers, and he must abide the consequences of his unlawful act.\nNo error.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George B. Patton, Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "White & Aycock for Defendant, Appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. BENNY MOORING.\n(Filed 17 October, 1956.)\nCriminal Raw \u00a7 52a(2)\u2014\nThe State is not precluded from showing the facts to be otherwise than as stated by one of its witnesses, and where in no aspect does the State\u2019s evidence establish a complete defense, defendant\u2019s motion to nonsuit on that ground is properly denied.\nJohnson, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Bone, J., March Criminal Term 1956 of Lenoir.\nCriminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill resulting in serious injury, a violation of G.S. 14-32.\nPlea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment for 12 months to be assigned to work the public roads, defendant appeals.\nGeorge B. Patton, Attorney General, and T. W. Bruton, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nWhite & Aycock for Defendant, Appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0624-01",
  "first_page_order": 670,
  "last_page_order": 671
}