{
  "id": 8559508,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEWEL DAVIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1963-03-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 138"
    }
  ],
  "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": "108 S.E. 2d 892",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N. C. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 N.C. 127",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8597028
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/208/0127-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 S.E. 2d 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 N.C. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8608161
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/245/0215-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 2963,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.497,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.953534832442676e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4216523820500732
    },
    "sha256": "0834b1211ad28faf7d12aec1c4702da62cd3bfb151c06c31ae868c81a6f4c72d",
    "simhash": "1:d1f97638ae7b0a49",
    "word_count": 508
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEWEL DAVIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant offered evidence of deceased\u2019s reputation for violence. Additionally he sought to elicit by cross-examination of the State\u2019s witnesses the fact that deceased had committed specific violent assaults on persons other than defendant. The evidence was, on objection by the State, excluded. Defendant assigns as error the court\u2019s refusal to permit him to show that deceased had at different times assaulted specifically named persons. The ruling was correct. It is in 'accord with prior decisions of this Court. S. v. Morgan, 245 N.C. 215, 95 S.E. 2d 507, and cases there cited.\nDefendant assigns as error a portion of the court\u2019s charge, contending the court unduly limited his rig'ht of self-defense. When the charge is read as a whole, as it must be, we are of the opinion and hold that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant\u2019s claim of self-defense was as declared in S. v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427, quoted with approval in S. v. Fowler, 250 N. C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892.\nOur review of the record fails to disclose error of which defendant can justly complain.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Barham for the State.",
      "W. B. Francis, M. Buchanan III, and T. D. Bryson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JEWEL DAVIS.\n(Filed 20 March 1963.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 18\u2014\nDefendant is moit entitled to introduce evidence that deceased at different times assaulted specifically named persons in order to establish the dangerous and violent character of deceased as relating to the issue of self-defense.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 161\u2014\nThe charge of the court will be construed contextually as a whole.\nAppeal by defendant from Farthing, J., October 1962 Term of Jack.SON.\nDefendant was 'charged in a bill of indictment with the murder of Lester Green. The jury returned a verdict of manslaughter.\nThe facts to support the verdict and necessary to understand the challenge to the conviction are, briefly stated, these: Defendant went to the store of one Ferguson about 5:55 p.m. on 23 June 1962. He purchased a bag of flour, which he put on his left shoulder. Green came in the store about two or three minutes later than defendant. Green came up to defendant and said: \u201cJewel, I hear you are carrying a gun for me.\u201d Deceased put his right hand on defendant\u2019s left arm. Defendant said: \u201cGet this man away from me.\u201d He made a move with his right hand in the direction of his right hip. Deceased grasped defendant and encircled defendant\u2019s arms. In the ensuing struggle defendant succeeded in getting his pistol. He shot deceased three times. One shot was in the chest, one in the back, and one in the hip. The last two shots were fired when the bodies were some five or six feet apart.\nDefendant admitted he shot deceased, a man he knew to bear the reputation of being dangerous and violent. He claimed self-defense, justifying him in shooting and killing deceased.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Barham for the State.\nW. B. Francis, M. Buchanan III, and T. D. Bryson, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 182,
  "last_page_order": 183
}