{ "id": 8571577, "name": "STATE v. DAVID McGIRT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. McGirt", "decision_date": "1965-01-15", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "527", "last_page": "530", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "263 N.C. 527" } ], "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": "63 S.E. 2d 151", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602339 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "22 S.E. 2d 271", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 148", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629076 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0148-01" ] }, { "cite": "20 S.E. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "221 N.C. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627801 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 526", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N.C. 532", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625188 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0532-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 N.C. 515", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8697385 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/78/0515-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 629", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "262 N.C. 753", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571931 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/262/0753-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.E. 2d 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "245 N.C. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610604 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/245/0323-01" ] }, { "cite": "79 S.E. 2d 235", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "239 N.C. 78", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625717 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/239/0078-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.E. 2d 599", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "231 N.C. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629638 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/231/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 S.E. 2d 42", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 208", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625255 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0208-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 39", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8597931 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0039-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 869", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N.C. 795", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659280 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0795-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 422, "char_count": 6059, "ocr_confidence": 0.579, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.030802942684795e-08, "percentile": 0.5040216630390421 }, "sha256": "4a3c830ca1b4d1edda29bfcccf596bcd3aecc358780c5cf20172bc96b075f431", "simhash": "1:934af873148a9c30", "word_count": 1098 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:48.035422+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. DAVID McGIRT." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER Cueiam.\nThe State\u2019s evidence shows these facts: Defendant David McGirt and Modes McGirt were husband and wife, and lived in a house together. Charlie Calahan, after his release from serving a prison term in Florida, spent considerable time in defendant\u2019s home, in spite of defendant\u2019s protests. Defendant had also served a prison term for armed robbery. He (McGirt) had said \u201cif he took one\u2019s life, he would take the other.\u201d On the night of 28 November 1963 Calahan brought to defendant\u2019s home a bottle of vodka and a bottle of whisky. Defendant, his wife, and Calahan were drinking the vodka and whisky. Verrell Ray, Evelyn Locklear, and a baby were present. There was a TV on in one room and a piccolo was playing in another. Calahan stood up and was dragging his feet as if dancing by himself in the room where the piccolo was playing. Defendant came into the piccolo room with a shotgun and said: \u201cCharlie, I have got you where I want you.\u201d He then shot Calahan with the shotgun inflicting a wound causing death.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence shows these facts: He had repeatedly asked Calahan to quit coming to his house, and had previously had an officer to carry him away. On the fatal night he drank no intoxicants. This is defendant\u2019s testimony as to the shooting:\n\u201cAt that time I was standing in the door leading into the living room. Charlie was standing about even with the piccolo, back toward the door leading into the living room. I would say he was about like from here to the corner of her desk (indicating Reporter\u2019s desk) from me. He said, \u2018I thought I told you you had to leave.\u2019 I said, T am not going anywhere.\u2019 He said, \u2018You are going somewhere, or one of us is going somewhere.\u2019 He put his hands in his pants\u2019 pocket. He was coming towards me. I had backed up some when he advanced toward me. He was pulling something out of his pocket. I reached out in the hall, right around there. I had set the gun there. I set the gun there the day before that. And so when I reached down and got the gun, he was right at me, and just as I had turned around, he had it up coming at me. I don\u2019t know whether it was a .25 or .22, or what it was. I saw a weapon. When he said that, he was almost in reach of the gun barrel. I didn\u2019t do a thing but just pulled the trigger, just did have it up. I shot him to keep him from killing me, probably. That\u2019s when I left.\u201d\nDefendant has two assignments of error: each assigns as error a part of the court\u2019s charge to the jury on self-defense, the defense upon which defendant relies.\nDefendant first assigns as error that the judge instructed the jury in effect as follows: If the State has satisfied the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally assaulted the deceased with a deadly weapon, and such an assault caused death, there are two presumptions that arise in the State\u2019s favor, (1) that it was an unlawful killing and (2) that it was done with malice, and then the burden is upon the defendant, not the State, to satisfy the jury, not beyond a reasonable doubt nor by the greater weight of the evidence, but merely to satisfy the jury of the legal provocation that will rob the crime of malice and thus reduce it to manslaughter, or that will excuse it altogether upon the grounds of self-defense. Defendant contends this part of the charge is erroneous, in that it places a burden upon defendant, and the burden of proof is always on the State, and the charge as to burden of proof is conflicting. When an intentional killing with a deadly weapon is admitted judicially in court by the defendant or is proven by the State beyond a reasonable doubt, self-defense is an affirmative plea, with the burden of satisfaction cast upon the defendant. The assignment of error is overruled. The challenged part of the charge is in strict accord with well-established law stated in repeated decisions of the Court. S. v. Benson, 183 N.C. 795, 111 S.E. 869; S. v. Utley, 223 N.C. 39, 25 S.E. 2d 195; S. v. Childress, 228 N.C. 208, 45 S.E. 2d 42; S. v. Jernigan, 231 N.C. 338, 56 S.E. 2d 599; S. v. Howell, 239 N.C. 78, 79 S.E. 2d 235; S. v. Mangum, 245 N.C. 323, 96 S.E. 2d 39. S. v. Holloway, 262 N.C. 753, 138 S.E. 2d 629, relied upon by defendant is not in point because the instruction there challenged was -in respect to the recent possession of stolen property.\nThe second assignment of error is in respect to a defendant\u2019s right of self-defense when he is assaulted in his own home, as defendant contends he was here. This assignment of error is overruled. The judge\u2019s charge in this respect is in substantial compliance with the law as stated in the following decisions of the Court. S. v. Harman, 78 N.C. 515; S. v. Roddey, 219 N.C. 532, 14 S.E. 2d 526; S. v. Miller, 221 N.C. 356, 20 S.E. 2d 274; S. v. Anderson, 222 N.C. 148, 22 S.E. 2d 271; S. v. Sally, 233 N.C. 225, 63 S.E. 2d 151.\nIn the trial below we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER Cueiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock.", "L. J. Britt \u2022& Son by L. J. Britt and Robert Weinstein for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. DAVID McGIRT.\n(Filed 15 January, 1965.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 23\u2014\nAn instruction placing the burden on defendant to prove matters in mitigation or justification upon the State\u2019s evidence establishing beyond a reasonable doubt an intentional billing with a deadly weapon, is not error.\n2. Homicide \u00a7 27\u2014\nThe court\u2019s charge in respect to defendant\u2019s right to self-defense when assaulted in his own home held without error in this ease.\nAppeal by defendant from Carr,