{
  "id": 8560234,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES VAUGHN TWIGGS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Twiggs",
  "decision_date": "1963-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "289",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 N.C. 288"
    }
  ],
  "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": 281,
    "char_count": 3725,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.526,
    "sha256": "4448481299d176abd78f246a8a240fb08295a3f2d47412c84d349a45b94c0164",
    "simhash": "1:e99e0f567a18993b",
    "word_count": 607
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:55:17.750134+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES VAUGHN TWIGGS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tends to show defendant shot Ensley about 2:00 a.m. July 3, 1962, on the Dutch Cove Road, a mile or so south of the corporate limits of Canton; that Ensley was in the driver\u2019s seat of the 1940 Ford, which had -stopped on said road in front of defendant\u2019s residence premises, and defendant was on his own premises when the fatal shot was fired; and that a bullet fired by defendant entered Ensley\u2019s right temple and proximately caused his death at 4:40 a.m. in the Haywood County Hospital.\nThere was plenary evidence that Ensley, accompanied by State\u2019s witness Gribble, had followed a car driven by defendant\u2019s wife, in which defendant was riding, from Canton along the Dutch Gove Road until it turned into and went up defendant\u2019s private driveway; that shortly thereafter Ensley\u2019s 1940 Ford returned and stopped with lights off in front of defendant\u2019s premises; and that defendant had reasonable grounds to apprehend Ensley and Gribble intended to rob him or harm his wife or otherwise engage in unlawful conduct.\nAccording to the State\u2019s evidence, neither Ensley nor Gribble got out of the 1940 Ford but both remained seated therein until defendant, who was 25-40 feet from the Dutch Cove Road, fired three shots in quick succession. According to defendant\u2019s evidence, Gribble or Ensley got out of the 1940 Ford, started up the bank along the front of defendant\u2019s premises and failed to respond to defendant\u2019s demand, \u201cGo away, don\u2019t come up here\u201d; and defendant did not intend to barm Ensley, or anyone, but fired solely for the purpose of scaring off intruders and did so when it reasonably appeared necessary in order to defend himself, his wife and his property.\nAt the time of the events referred to above, the occupants of the 1940 Ford, later identified as Ensley and Gribble, were complete strangers to defendant and defendant\u2019s wife.\nThe verdict indicates the jury reached the conclusion that defendant fired this pistol, intentionally, in such direction and in such manner that his conduct, under the circumstances then existing, constituted culpable negligence, and that defendant\u2019s culpable negligence proximately caused Esley\u2019s death.\nThe evidence has been carefully read and considered. No useful purpose would be served by a review thereof in detail. The jury saw and heard the witnesses; and it was for the jury to resolve the conflicts in the evidence.\nCareful consideration of each of defendant\u2019s assignments fails to disclose prejudicial error; for the charge, when read as a composite whole, indicates that the applicable principles of law were presented in such manner as to leave no reasonable ground to believe that the jury was misinformed or misled. Hence, defendant\u2019s assignments are overruled.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.",
      "Frank D. Ferguson and Ward At Bennett for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES VAUGHN TWIGGS.\n(Filed 17 April 1963.)\nAppeal by defendant from Farthing, J., December 1962 Regular Criminal Term of Haywood.\nCriminal prosecution on bill of indictment charging defendant with the first degree murder of David Ralph Ensley. Upon the call of the ease for trial, the solicitor announced that the State would not ask for a verdict of guilty of murder in the first degree, but would ask for a verdict of second degree murder or of manslaughter as the evidence under the law might warrant.\nEvidence was offered by the State and by defendant.\nThe jury returned a verdict of \u201cGUILTY OF INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.\u201d Judgment imposing a prison sentence was pronounced.\nDefendant excepted and appealed. Upon appeal, all assignments relate to alleged enroris of commission and of omission in the charge.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Jones for the State.\nFrank D. Ferguson and Ward At Bennett for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 332,
  "last_page_order": 333
}