{
  "id": 8616674,
  "name": "STATE v. WILLIAM McDONALD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McDonald",
  "decision_date": "1959-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "249 N.C. 419"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 252,
    "char_count": 3722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.575,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.833005200146801e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4170156252352936
    },
    "sha256": "c596d39ea00c1bcbf63e214cbeb6d4428792599ffc4591765f4ca43cbf577fa4",
    "simhash": "1:d9fc4125d36f8741",
    "word_count": 604
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WILLIAM McDONALD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThere was plenary evidence to support a finding that defendant intentionally shot his wife and that the shotgun wound so inflicted caused her immediate death, giving rise to the presumptions that the killing was unlawful and with malice.\nThe deceased woman weighed \u201caround 115 to 120 pounds.\u201d Defendant appeared to weigh \u201c180 or 185 pounds or more.\u201d The killing occurred in the bedroom of their (rented) portion of a divided dwelling.\nTwo investigating officers testified that defendant, in explanation of the killing, stated that the deceased \u201cwas chasing him and pulled a razor on him\u201d and, despite his warning, \u201ckept coming on him with the razor.\u201d Defendant\u2019s sole contention, namely, that this portion of the testimony of these officers established completely that he shot his wife in self-defense, is untenable.\nThe said officers also testified as to declarations by defendant to the effect that when he entered the bedroom (1) he found his wife lying on her bed, and (2) what 'he saw, before and after entering the bedroom, caused him to believe that his wife and the landlord had engaged in sexual intercourse. (The landlord, testifying as a State\u2019s witness, contradicted all material portions of defendant\u2019s declarations relating to him.)\nAnother witness, a neighbor, to whom defendant first reported the killing, testified that the only explanation defendant then gave was that \u201che caught his wife wrong.\u201d His testimony, together with testimony as to physical conditions in the bedroom, the location of the wounds on the body of deceased, and the absence of injury to defendant, tended to show that the facts were other than as set forth in the portions of defendant\u2019s declarations to said officers bearing upon self-defense.\nThe evidence, considered in its entirety, was sufficient to support a finding that defendant, when he shot his wife, was not acting in self-defense. Moreover, it was incumbent upon defendant to satisfy the jury (1) that he did act in self-defense, and (2) that, in the exercise of his right to self-defense, he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for submission to the jury. Hence, the coui\u2019t\u2019s ruling, now challenged by defendant, is approved.\nNo Error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Moody, for the State.",
      "Britt, Campbell & Britt for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WILLIAM McDONALD.\n(Filed 14 January, 1959.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 18\u2014\nThe burden is upon defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the jury that he acted in his self-defense and that in the exercise of his right to self-defense he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.\na. Homicide \u00a7 20\u2014\nTestimony of State\u2019s witnesses as to declarations made by defendant tending to establish that defendant killed his wife in self-defense, does not justify nonsuit when the other evidence in the case tends to show the facts to be other than as set forth in defendant\u2019s declarations.\nAppeal by defendant from Williams, J., May Criminal Term, 1958, of Robeson.\nIndicted at April Criminal Term, 1958, for the first degree murder on April 7, 1958, of Eloise McDonald, Ms wife, defendant was put on trial at May Criminal Term, 1958, for second degree murder. \u2022'\nThe only evidence was that offered by the State.\nUpon the verdict, \u201cGuilty of Manslaughter,\u201d judgment, imposing a prison sentence of twenty years, was pronounced.\nOn appeal, defendant\u2019s only assignment of error, based on appropriate exception, is directed to the overruling of his motion for judgment of nonsuit.\nAttorney General Seawell and Assistant Attorney General Moody, for the State.\nBritt, Campbell & Britt for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 462
}