{ "id": 8566504, "name": "STATE v. AMY HUGGINS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Huggins", "decision_date": "1967-03-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "752", "last_page": "755", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "269 N.C. 752" } ], "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": "46 S.E. 2d 858", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 656", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627978 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0656-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 426, "char_count": 7344, "ocr_confidence": 0.551, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.7067855420268174e-07, "percentile": 0.7017793315363173 }, "sha256": "601c436cb0f1fab1eedebe485cf6604e3d37ac18cf205fa0f20d6f25e4c81e75", "simhash": "1:ecf4a71583f49069", "word_count": 1278 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:18.626474+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. AMY HUGGINS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER Cubiam.\nThe State\u2019s evidence, in brief summary, tends to show the following facts: Geraldine Hill and the defendant Amy Huggins had been having trouble for some time as the result of defendant\u2019s dating Geraldine Hill\u2019s husband. On 5 October 1965 Geraldine Hill and her husband were not living together. On 5 October 1965 defendant was a widow. Between 9:30 and 10 p.m. on 5 October 1965 Geraldine Hill went to defendant\u2019s home in an automobile driven by her sister, Paulette White. Geraldine got out of the automobile, went up on the porch of defendant\u2019s home, and knocked at the door. Defendant inside of the house lifted the shade at the window, saw it was Geraldine, and pulled the shade down. She saw her husband run across the floor inside the house, because the shade was flopping where defendant had \u201cslammed it down.\u201d Defendant said, \u201cIt\u2019s your g- - d-wife.\u201d After that Geraldine\u2019s husband came to the door, opened it, and they were standing in the door talking. 'Defendant walked' up to the door, stuck a rifle in Geraldine\u2019s ribs and pulled the trigger, saying, \u201cI told you I would shoot your g - - d-wife.\u201d Defendant slammed the door, and Geraldine fell on the porch. Before she was shot, Geraldine and defendant did not speak to each other. Geraldine\u2019s husband and her sister got her in her sister\u2019s automobile, which was driven to the hospital. Geraldine was unconscious when she was carried into the hospital. The bullet from the rifle passed through her body. She was in the hospital eleven days.\nThe State\u2019s evidence further tends to show that about four years before 5 October 1965 defendant came to Geraldine Hill\u2019s home and said to Geraldine, \u201cI will kill you before I let you tell my husband what I am doing.\u201d That was when defendant\u2019s second husband was living.\nPaulette White, Geraldine\u2019s sister, testified in substance: Geraldine\u2019s husband came out on the porch, took Geraldine\u2019s arm, and said, \u201cLet\u2019s go.\u201d Geraldine said: \u201cI want that.to tell me now that she is not going with my husband.\u201d We have omitted the vile name that Geraldine called defendant.\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show the following facts: She and Geraldine Hill were raised near each other, and they had known each other all their lives. They had always disliked each other. She had not dated Geraldine\u2019s husband over a half a dozen times. When Amy Huggins came home the night of 5 October 1965, Geraldine\u2019s husband and one Mary Jennings were there. She went into the bathroom and took a bath. After that she was watching television. About 9 p.m. Geraldine Hill came to her house and was knocking at the door. She went to the door, pulled the curtain back, and saw Geraldine standing on the porch. She went to her bedroom to telephone the police department, because she had a warrant out for Geraldine\u2019s arrest. About a month before, Geraldine had trespassed upon her property, and committed property damage. Before she was able to get the police over the telephone, Geraldine came into her house. Geraldine got half way through her living room, screaming at her, pointing her finger at her, and calling her a \u201cblack-headed b-.\u201d Geraldine was coming at her just as fast as she could, and she had no place to go. She grabbed her rifle and shot her. She did not mean to shoot her; she meant to get Geraldine and her husband out of her house. She wanted Geraldine and her husband to leave, and she was screaming, \u201cGet out, get out,\u201d and they were not trying to get out, and the rifle went off. Geraldine fell to the floor. Geraldine had got within a few feet of her in a threatening attitude, and was still coming at her when the rifle fired. She did not mean to shoot; the gun went off. She testified: \u201cI had the gun and the gun went off. Yes, a gun goes off as a result of pulling the trigger, and I suppose I pulled the trigger. The gun was in my hand, and the gun went off. . . . Evidently, I did pull the trigger, Yes, I pulled the trigger. ... I just had the gun in my hand when it went off. I didn\u2019t mean to pull the trigger, but it went off, anyway. . . . The shooting was an accident.\u201d\nDefendant also offered evidence tending to show the following facts: On Labor Day week end in September 1965, Geraldine Hill, in a conversation with people at the beach at Morehead City, was talking about her husband and defendant. Geraldine would curse her husband and then she would say, \u201cOne of these days, I am going to kill both of them.\u201d Alpheus White, who is the present husband of defendant, told defendant of this threat made by Geraldine.\nThe State called in rebuttal Geraldine\u2019s husband, Jerry Hill, who is still married to Geraldine. His testimony tends to show that Geraldine was standing on the porch when defendant shot her. He has heard his wife say she was going to beat defendant. He does know that his wife has threatened him.\nDefendant assigns as error that the court in its charge used the words, \u201cThe State has presented evidence in this case which tends to show,\u201d in arraying the evidence offered by the State. She contends that in using these words the court expressed an opinion upon the weight of the evidence, in violation of G.S. 1-180. The same expression was used by the court in its charge in reciting defendant\u2019s evidence. This assignment of error is overruled upon the authority of S. v. Jackson, 228 N.C. 656, 46 S.E. 2d 858.\nDefendant assigns as error that the court failed to comply with the requirements of G.S. 1-180, in that it failed to charge the jury as to the law arising upon the evidence as it related to defendant\u2019s legal right to defend her home and to evict trespassers therefrom. Reading the charge of the court in its entirety, it appears that while the judge\u2019s charge on the point raised by defendant\u2019s assignment of error was not as full and comprehensive as it might have been, yet the charge was adequate under our decisions, and prejudicial error is not shown.\nAll the other assignments of error have been carefully considered, and are overruled, for the reason that nothing is shown that would justify disturbing the verdict and judgment below. The case presents in essence issues of fact determinable alone by the jury. The verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "PER Cubiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.", "Turner & Harrison by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. AMY HUGGINS.\n(Filed 29 March, 1967.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 108\u2014\nThe use of the phrase \u201cthe State has presented evidence in this case which tends to show\u201d in recapitulating the State\u2019s evidence, the same phrase being used in the recapitulation of defendant\u2019s evidence, is held not to constitute an expression of opinion by the court on the evidence. G.S. 1-180.\nS. Assault and Battery \u00a7 15\u2014\nThe court\u2019s instruction in this case held to have adequately presented to the jury defendant\u2019s contention of self-defense.\nAppeal by defendant from Peel, J., October 1966 Session of Le-NOIR.\nCriminal prosecution on an indictment charging defendant on 5 October 1965 with feloniously assaulting Geraldine Hill with a deadly weapon, to wit, a rifle, and inflicting upon her serious injury not resulting in death, a violation of G.S. 14-32.\nPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment for 12 months, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Assistant Attorney General James F. Bullock for the State.\nTurner & Harrison by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0752-01", "first_page_order": 784, "last_page_order": 787 }