{
  "id": 8573589,
  "name": "STATE v. QUINCY ROY KEA",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kea",
  "decision_date": "1962-03-07",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "492",
  "last_page": "493",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 N.C. 492"
    }
  ],
  "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": 273,
    "char_count": 4048,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.535,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6791998165384534e-07,
      "percentile": 0.826525986650187
    },
    "sha256": "fb30ecf0ef981402177e6d085f3a0e2e7c0df46c57699b36ee026589c5c61ffa",
    "simhash": "1:d72d481e1b5dda59",
    "word_count": 661
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:51:02.884412+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "WlNBORNE, C.J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. QUINCY ROY KEA."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIt is unnecessary to review the evidence in detail. Suffice to say, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.\nDefendant assigns as error, inter alia, this portion of the charge: \u201cManslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation, as I have said to you, and is of two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary manslaughter, as I have said, is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation.\u201d (Our italics) Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is based on exceptions duly taken.\nThe challenged instruction contains obvious error. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation. The unlawful killing of a human being with malice, but without premeditation and deliberation, is murder in the second degree.\nThe court, in an earlier instruction, had given the correct definition of manslaughter. Defendant contended, if guilty at all, he was guilty of no greater crime than manslaughter. The failure, by reason of the conflicting instructions, to draw clearly and accurately the distinction between murder in the second degree and manslaughter must be held sufficiently prejudicial to entitle defendant to a new trial.\nWhether the erroneous instruction is attributable to an error in taking or transcribing the charge, or to \u201ca slip of the tongue,\u201d we must base decision on the record as it comes to us.\nNew trial.\nWlNBORNE, C.J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.",
      "John W. Campbell and Napoleon B. Barefoot for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. QUINCY ROY KEA.\n(Filed 7 March, 1962.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 2\u2014\nThe evidence in this case held sufficient to be submitted to the jury and support the verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 26; Criminal Law \u00a7 161-\u2014\nAn instruction in a homicide prosecution that manslaughter is an unlawful killing of a human being with malice but without premeditation and deliberation must be held for prejudicial error upon appeal from conviction of murder in the second degree, notwithstanding that in other portions of the charge the court gave a correct definition of manslaughter as the unlawful killing of a human being without malice and without premeditation and deliberation.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 151\u2014\nThe Supreme Court is bound by the record as docketed.\nWinbokne, C.J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Burgwyn, Emergency Judge, November Term 1961 of PendeR.\nCriminal prosecution on bill of indictment charging defendant with the murder of Roscoe Lloyd. When the case was called for trial, the Solicitor announced that the State would \u201cseek no greater verdict than that of Guilty of Murder in the Second Degree.\u201d\nOn Monday, June 19, 1961, defendant shot Roscoe Lloyd, who died two or three hours later from gunshot wounds so inflicted. The shooting occurred at defendant\u2019s home in Caintuck Township, Pender County, located a quarter of a mile, over a \u201cvery rough\u201d road, from the nearest paved road. Lloyd came to defendant\u2019s home on a truck, got off the truck and approached defendant. Defendant, standing at the front door of his home, fired once, using a double-barrel, sixteen-gauge shotgun.\nThere was evidence tending to support defendant\u2019s contention that, incident to prior difficulties, Lloyd had threatened him and earlier that day, at the home of one George Moore, had told him he was going to kill him; that he told Lloyd twice to stop before he \u201cgrabbed it (the shotgun) and pulled the trigger\u201d; and that, when Lloyd did not stop, he fired the shotgun solely because of his fear that Lloyd would kill him or inflict serious bodily injury.\nThe jury returned a verdict of \u201cGuilty of Murder in the Second Degree.\u201d Judgment, imposing a prison sentence of \u201cnot less than fifteen years nor more than twenty years,\u201d was pronounced. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.\nJohn W. Campbell and Napoleon B. Barefoot for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0492-01",
  "first_page_order": 528,
  "last_page_order": 529
}