{ "id": 8565423, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BOBBY HARRINGTON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harrington", "decision_date": "1974-12-30", "docket_number": "No. 124", "first_page": "327", "last_page": "331", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "286 N.C. 327" } ], "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": "209 S.E. 2d 317", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564488, 8564458, 8564526, 8564434, 8564405 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0212-04", "/nc/286/0212-03", "/nc/286/0212-05", "/nc/286/0212-02", "/nc/286/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "206 S.E. 2d 768", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "22 N.C. App. 473", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 11307319 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/22/0473-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 129", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "133" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571995 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "683" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "166 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "661-62" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558305 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "212" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 889", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "890-91" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575214 ], "year": 1968, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "335" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 782", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "795" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561660 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 545", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "547" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 156", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8604316 ], "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "159" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0156-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 9796, "ocr_confidence": 0.584, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.124550540206165e-08, "percentile": 0.46825336148941504 }, "sha256": "630548003a22bc41f4cf4db19d82e7363001a1d3141047c833d6b87682edd641", "simhash": "1:a83ef42381caf0d0", "word_count": 1678 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:13.966890+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BOBBY HARRINGTON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice.\nThe only question is whether there was evidence sufficient to require submission of guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a permissible verdict. The answer is provided by application of the well settled legal principles stated below.\n\u201cThe necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed. The presence of such evidence is the determinative factor.\u201d State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159, 84 S.E. 2d 545, 547 (1954) ; State v. Foster, 284 N.C. 259, 277, 200 S.E. 2d 782, 795 (1973).\nThe jurors were instructed to return a verdict of not guilty if the State failed to satisfy them from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intentionally shot Willie Mae Evans and thereby proximately caused her death. Nothing in the State\u2019s evidence afforded a basis for submitting involuntary manslaughter as a permissible verdict. Our inquiry is whether defendant\u2019s testimony provided a sufficient basis therefor.\nAssuming, as defendant testified, the first bullet resulted from an accidental discharge of the rifle, defendant would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter only if there were evidence tending to show that such unintentional killing was caused by defendant\u2019s unjustified and wanton or reckless use of the rifle in such manner as to jeopardize Willie Mae\u2019s safety. State v. Griffin, 273 N.C. 333, 335, 159 S.E. 2d 889, 890-91 (1968) ; State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 198, 212, 166 S.E. 2d 652, 661-62 (1969) ; State v. Wrenn, 279 N.C. 676, 683, 185 S.E. 2d 129, 133 (1971).\nDefendant\u2019s testimony was to this effect: He started out the back door to engage in target practice. A person in his trailer-home called to him. He turned and went back to find out what the caller wanted. In doing so, he stumbled over a chair in his trailer-home. This caused the accidental discharge of the first (lethal) bullet. This testimony tends to negate culpable negligence in defendant\u2019s handling of the rifle.\nDefendant cites Moore and Wrenn in support of his contention. Suffice to say, the facts in evidence in each of these cases are quite different from the evidential facts in the present case.\nDefendant\u2019s testimony being insufficient to provide a basis for submission of involuntary manslaughter as a permissible verdict, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "BOBBITT, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr. and Assistant Attorneys General James E. Magner, Jr. and Claude W. Harris for the State.", "Philip A. Baddour, Jr. for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES BOBBY HARRINGTON\nNo. 124\n(Filed 30 December 1974)\nHomicide \u00a7 30\u2014 second degree murder \u2014 no submission of involuntary manslaughter proper\nEvidence in this prosecution for second degree murder was insufficient to require submission of an issue as to involuntary manslaughter where the State\u2019s evidence tended to show an intentional shooting and where defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show an accidental discharge of the rifle, but tended to negate culpable negligence in defendant\u2019s handling of the rifle.\nOn certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals reported in 22 N.C. App. 473, 206 S.E. 2d 768.\nDefendant was indicted for the murder of Willie Mae Evans on 24 March 1973. Prior to the commencement of his trial at 30 July 1973 Session of WAYNE County Superior Court before Canaday, J., the State announced its election to place defendant on trial for murder in the second degree or \u201csuch lesser included offense\u201d as the evidence might justify.\nAt trial, the State offered the testimony of Henry Harrington, defendant\u2019s brother; the testimony of investigating officers Coley and Locklair; a stipulation fixing the location of the three bullet wounds and identifying the bullet first discharged as being the cause of death; and defendant\u2019s .22 rifle from which the three bullets were discharged. Defendant testified but offered no other evidence.\nThe following summary reveals the evidence pertinent to a consideration of the legal question now presented.\nWillie Mae Evans (Willie Mae) died Saturday, 24 March 1973, in the late afternoon. Death occurred in the trailer-home of defendant and was caused by a bullet discharged from the .22 rifle in the hands of defendant. This bullet was the first of three bullets discharged from defendant\u2019s .22 rifle. According to the testimony of Henry Harrington (Henry), defendant shot Willie Mae three times inside the trailer. Defendant testified the first bullet was accidentally discharged inside the trailer and that the second and third bullets were discharged after he had left the trailer and was 75 or 100 yards away.\nDefendant\u2019s trailer-home was located some eight miles or more southeast of Goldsboro in a rural section known as Dudley. It was from 50 to 75 feet from the trailer of Gordon Greenfield. The area surrounding the two trailers was open land.\nOn Saturday, 24 March 1973, Henry and Willie Mae, who was living with Henry, were spending the day with defendant, defendant\u2019s wife and their two children. On previous Saturdays, Henry and Willie Mae had made similar visits. On this particular Saturday they arrived at defendant\u2019s trailer during the.early morning hours. Greenfield drove Henry and Willie Mae, \u2022 and defendant and his family, to Goldsboro. Purchases there included the purchase by Henry and by defendant of \u201ca fifth of liquor\u201d from the ABC store. Upon returning to the trailer, Willie Mae and Listine, defendant\u2019s wife, went into the kitchen area. Henry and defendant were in the living room talking and drinking the liquor. During this time, defendant got the .22 rifle from the bedroom and brought it (through the kitchen) into the living room. He had bought the rifle a month or so earlier. It had been used for target practicing in which Willie Mae had participated.\nAfter the first \u201cfifth\u201d had been consumed, at Henry\u2019s suggestion defendant arranged with Greenfield to take them to LaGrange to buy the second \u201cfifth.\u201d Henry testified that, upon their return, he, Willie Mae, defendant, and Listine, drank some of the second \u201cfifth.\u201d Defendant testified he drank no part of the second \u201cfifth\u201d and that he had no drink after 11:30 a.m.\nAccording to Henry\u2019s testimony, he and defendant got into an argument over who had paid or was supposed to pay the most for the liquor and, while such an argument was in progress, Willie Mae filled a Pepsi-Cola bottle with all or part of the liquor then on hand and went back into the kitchen. At that time, defendant pointed the rifle at Henry\u2019s chest and said, \u201cI\u2019ll shoot you.\u201d Henry\u2019s further testimony is stated in his own words as follows: \u201cWhen Willie Mae heard him, she walked out of the kitchen and told him not to shoot. Willie Mae was a good ways from me at the time when she walked out of the kitchen. She was standing about in the kitchen door. When she came in the living room, she told him not to shoot. He jumped up and said, \u2018G \u2014 D\u2014it, I\u2019ll kill you.\u2019 By that time he fired the rifle. He shot her in the shoulder. After he shot her the first time he shot her in the stomach then twice. The first time he shot her she was standing up. When he shot her the second time, she was falling then. When he shot her the third time, she fell and I caught her myself.\u201d\nInvestigating officers testified they arrived about 6:30 p.m.; that, inside the trailer, Henry was kneeling beside Willie Mae\u2019s body; that defendant and the rifle were at Greenfield\u2019s trailer; and that, in successive conversations, defendant stated (1) that Willie Mae, when engaged with him in target practicing, leaned over in front of the barrel of the rifle and shot herself; (2) that, while on the way to target practice, the rifle went off \u201cwhen he picked it up and swung it around\u201d; and (3) that he picked up the rifle and shot Willie Mae but didn\u2019t mean to do it. Their testimony included statements attributed to defendant to the effect that his argument with Henry related to who paid or was to pay the most for the liquor.\nThe testimony of defendant contradicted in many particulars the State\u2019s evidence and the statements attributed to him by the officers. He testified he had no quarrel with Willie Mae and didn\u2019t intend to shoot anybody. He testified he had the loaded rifle and was going out of the back door of the trailer to do some target practicing. Testimony of defendant, stressed as a basis for his contention, is quoted below:\n\u201cI had the rifle in my left hand; when I went on out the back door, going out the back door somebody called me and I come back up into the house into the kitchen. I don\u2019t know who called me. It was a man\u2019s voice. I was going to see who it was and there was a chair down there and I stumbled over the chair and the gun went off. I stumbled over a chair in the kitchen. I had the rifle in my left hand and it went off. When the gun went off the bullet hit Willie Mae up there around the shoulder. Willie Mae was going to fall to the floor so I throwed the rifle on the floor and helped to get her in the rocking chair.\u201d\nIn his charge, Judge Canaday instructed the jury to return either a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree or a verdict of not guilty.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of murder in the second degree and judgment imposing a prison sentence was pronounced. Defendant excepted and appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals found \u201cNo Error.\u201d Defendant then applied to this Court for certiorari for review of one question, namely, whether Judge Canaday should have submitted guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a permissible verdict. We allowed certiorari 8 November 1974 to consider this question. 286 N.C. 212, 209 S.E. 2d 317.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr. and Assistant Attorneys General James E. Magner, Jr. and Claude W. Harris for the State.\nPhilip A. Baddour, Jr. for defendant." }, "file_name": "0327-01", "first_page_order": 347, "last_page_order": 351 }