{
  "id": 8562399,
  "name": "STATE v. JOHNNIE COOPER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cooper",
  "decision_date": "1966-03-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "644",
  "last_page": "646",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 644"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 S.E. 2d 12",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575111
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0312-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 3991,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.458523723746264e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6567985237749382
    },
    "sha256": "882d3854d31ac8a2a9a8c87cb599b3a9f83339f4f500a8cf38032eef8e4dc41e",
    "simhash": "1:460d42072b1d41b4",
    "word_count": 690
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mooee, J., not sitting."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JOHNNIE COOPER."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cueiam.\nThere was plenary evidence that defendant cut Walter Griffin\u2019s right arm to such extent \u201c(i)t took 27 stitches to sew (his) arm up.\u201d\nDefendant, while admitting he cut Griffin, insists the court erred in failing to instruct the jury and apply the law with reference to his right of self-defense and his right (S. v. Hornbuckle, 265 N.C. 312, 144 S.E. 2d 12) to defend a third person from a felonious assault.\nEvidence offered by defendant tended to show: When defendant and George Spicer, in Spicer\u2019s car, brought John Henry Buff home, Griffin was in Buff\u2019s yard, \u201ctearing up the yard with his car.\u201d When Buff told Griffin \u201cto get away from there,\u201d Griffin left and went \u201ctowards his home.\u201d Shortly thereafter, Griffin came back. He had a shotgun. Buff was standing on his porch. Griffin, in the road \u201cabout 200 feet away\u201d and \u201ccussing,\u201d told Buff: \u201cIf you come down here I\u2019ll kill you.\u201d Buff testified: \u201c(S)o I wouldn\u2019t go down there.\u201d\nDefendant and Spicer left Buff and went down towards Griffin. What occurred thereafter is described by defendant as follows: \u201cI had a few drinks in me and I felt pretty brave, and I just went on down there . . . Well, me and George was right side by side, and we walked down there. George grabbed him and just as George grabbed him \u2014 We both grabbed him about the same time and I cut him. I cut him down across his arm. I just cut him one time. I had just a regular old straight-blade knife. ... I carry a knife all the time.\u201d On cross-examination, defendant testified: \u201cAfter the boy was cut, I was in the attic when the Sheriff came down, I was trying to get away.\u201d (Note: Griffin testified his unloaded shotgun was in his car and that defendant cut him without provocation of any kind.)\nThere is no evidence Griffin pointed the shotgun at Buff, defendant or Spicer. There is no evidence the shotgun was loaded. All the evidence is to the effect the shotgun was not fired.\nThere was no evidence defendant believed it was necessary to cut Griffin to prevent an assault on Buff or on himself or on Spicer and had reasonable grounds for such belief. Indeed, defendant did not testify he entertained and acted upon such belief. The facts in evidence did not call for instructions in legal principles relating to self-defense or to the right of a private citizen to defend a third person from a felonious assault.\nWhile defendant\u2019s other assignments of error have been considered, none discloses error of such prejudicial nature as to justify a new trial.\nIt is noteworthy that defendant, while not represented by counsel at his trial in the superior court, was ably represented by counsel in connection with his appeal to this Court.\nNo error.\nMooee, J., not sitting.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cueiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Good-wyn for the State.",
      "J. A. Benoy for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JOHNNIE COOPER.\n(Filed 2 March, 1966.)\nAssault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 8, 9\u2014\nEvidence tending to show that the victim, standing in the road some 200 feet away, threatened to kill the resident of a house, who was standing on his porch, if he came down there, that the resident did not go but that defendant and a companion walked to where the victim was standing, grabbed him, and cut him with a knife, held, not to present the question of self-defense or defense of another.\nMoore, J., not sitting.\nAppeal by defendant from Campbell, J., November 1965 Session of Rutherford.\nDefendant was indicted for felonious assault (G.S. 14-32) on one Walter Griffin on May 15, 1965. The solicitor announced that \u201c(t)he State will place the defendant on trial for Assault with a Deadly Weapon, a misdemeanor.\u201d The record shows \u201c(t)he defendant, without the assistance of counsel, having waived same, entered pleas of \u2018Self-defense' and not guilty.\u201d The jury returned a verdict of \u201cGuilty of an assault with a deadly weapon.\u201d Judgment imposing a prison sentence, with recommendation that defendant be placed on work release, was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Assistant Attorney General Good-wyn for the State.\nJ. A. Benoy for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0644-01",
  "first_page_order": 680,
  "last_page_order": 682
}