{
  "id": 8561256,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE JONES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jones",
  "decision_date": "1980-06-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 5",
  "first_page": "363",
  "last_page": "366",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "300 N.C. 363"
    }
  ],
  "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": "248 S.E. 2d 858",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 N.C. 75",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564637
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/296/0075-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 423",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574028
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0737-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 815",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "285 N.C. 158",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562638
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/285/0158-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 560",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559380
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 777",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "786"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 444",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559204
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0444-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "85 S.E. 2d 300",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "241 N.C. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610062
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/241/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "428 U.S. 903",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6183298,
        6181252,
        6182756,
        6183146,
        6182571,
        6181805,
        6182223,
        6181423,
        6181585,
        6182964,
        6182388,
        6181945,
        6182076
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/428/0903-13",
        "/us/428/0903-01",
        "/us/428/0903-10",
        "/us/428/0903-12",
        "/us/428/0903-09",
        "/us/428/0903-04",
        "/us/428/0903-07",
        "/us/428/0903-02",
        "/us/428/0903-03",
        "/us/428/0903-11",
        "/us/428/0903-08",
        "/us/428/0903-05",
        "/us/428/0903-06"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 S.E. 2d 238",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1975,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "244"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569931
      ],
      "year": 1975,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0597-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 10",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 56",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628223
      ],
      "year": 1949,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "58"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0056-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 S.E. 2d 465",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.C. 402",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625524
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/227/0402-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 S.E. 2d 447",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560458
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 S.E. 2d 431",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 N.C. 802",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574207
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/298/0802-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 407,
    "char_count": 5878,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.819,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.1554453248397785e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8629512763099316
    },
    "sha256": "05c3e9b8a1d83c610fb8cb30dded0f7fee02ccb2a44c4d4736a056e9f0701a71",
    "simhash": "1:1595912b6d3e3e7c",
    "word_count": 1020
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:04:36.297481+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice BROCK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE JONES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRANCH, Chief Justice.\nDefendant in his brief expressly abandons all of his assignments of error. Under Rule 10 of the North Carolina Rules of Appellate Procedure, review is foreclosed except insofar as exceptions are made the bases of assignments of error and those assignments are brought foward. Nevertheless, due to the gravity of the sentence imposed, we elected, pursuant to our inherent authority and Rule 2, to consider defendant\u2019s arguments as presented in his brief. See State v. Adams, 298 N.C. 802, 260 S.E. 2d 431 (1979).\nDefendant\u2019s brief is addressed solely to the failure of the judge to charge on all substantial features of the case. Defendant first contends that the jurors were confused over the meaning of the word \u201cintent\u201d and that the judge erred in failing to explain its meaning.\nIt is well settled that it is not error for the court to fail to define and explain words of common usage in the absence of a request for special instructions. State v. Jennings, 276 N.C. 157, 171 S.E. 2d 447 (1970); State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 402, 42 S.E. 2d 465 (1947). The word \u201cintent\u201d is self-explanatory, and we see \u201cno point in elaborating the obvious.\u201d State v. Plemmons, 230 N.C. 56, 58, 52 S.E. 2d 10, 11 (1949). We find no error in the court\u2019s failure to define the word \u201cintent.\u201d\nDefendant next argues that the judge erred in failing to submit the issue of intoxication to the jury. He maintains that the jury should have been permitted to determine whether he was intoxicated at the time of the commission of the offense and, if so, whether that intoxication was sufficient to negate criminal intent.\nThe crime of common law arson does not require a showing of specific intent. State v. McLaughlin, 286 N.C. 597, 213 S.E. 2d 238 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 903 (1976); State v. Thomas, 241 N.C. 337, 85 S.E. 2d 300 (1955). \u201cExcept where a crime requires a showing of specific intent, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a criminal charge. State v. Bunn, 283 N.C. 444, 196 S.E. 2d 777 (1973); State v. Propst, 274 N.C. 62, 161 S.E. 2d 560 (1968).\u201d State v. McLaughlin, supra at 606, 213 S.E. 2d at 244.\nEven so, defendant contends the jury should have been permitted to decide whether he was involuntarily intoxicated so as to negate even the general intent necessary to commit the crime of arson.\nIt is true that the court is required to instruct on all substantial features of a case, G.S. 15A-1232; and it is equally settled that defenses raised by the evidence constitute substantial features requiring an instruction. State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974). However, it is error for the court to instruct on a set of hypothetical facts not presented by the evidence. State v. Ferdinando, 298 N.C. 737, 260 S.E. 2d 423 (1979). In the instant case, there is no evidence that defendant\u2019s intoxication, if any, was other than voluntary. Mr. Eatmon testified that he and defendant went to a tavern early in the evening and that defendant consumed two or three beers. \u201c[I]t is only when alcohol has been introduced into a person\u2019s system without his knowledge or by force majeure that his intoxication will be regarded as involuntary.\u201d State v. Bunn, supra at 457, 196 S.E. 2d at 786. There was no evidence to support a charge on involuntary intoxication, and we hold that the trial judge committed no error in failing to instruct on that defense.\nDefendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJustice BROCK took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRANCH, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Rufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by George W. Boylan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "E. J. Kromis, Jr., for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WALTER LEE JONES\nNo. 5\n(Filed 3 June 1980)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.4\u2014 jury charge \u2014 failure to define intent\nThe trial court in a prosecution for common law arson did not err in failing to define the word \u201cintent.\u201d\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.2\u2014 involuntary intoxication \u2014 instruction not required\nThe trial court in a common law arson case did not err in failing to submit an issue of involuntary intoxication to the jury where there was no evidence that defendant\u2019s intoxication, if any, was other than voluntary.\nJustice Brock took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Rouse, J., 5 February 1979 Criminal Session of Wilson Superior Court.\nDefendant was charged in an indictment proper in form with the crime of common law arson. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty. This is the second time this case has been before us. In 296 N.C. 75, 248 S.E. 2d 858 (1978), we found error in the failure of the prosecutor to furnish certain laboratory results to defendant and granted defendant a new trial.\nAt trial, evidence for the State tended to show that on 3 March 1978 defendant was residing at an apartment with Wallace Eatmon. Mr. Eatmon had lived at the apartment for about two years. The lease was in his name, and he had paid the rent during the time he had lived there. On the evening of 3 March 1978, defendant and Eatmon went to a tavern where defendant consumed two or three beers. Upon their return home, the two began to argue concerning a debt which defendant owed Eatmon. During the course of the argument, defendant picked up a bottle of kerosene and poured the contents on the floor of the apartment. He then threw lighted matches onto the floor, igniting the kerosene. After trying unsuccessfully to extinguish the flames, Eatmon left to call the fire department. Upon his return home, he found that the apartment and its contents were almost totally consumed.\nDefendant did not testify but offered evidence that the reputation of prosecuting witness Eatmon for truth and veracity was not good.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty, and defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed pursuant to G.S. 7A-27(a).\nRufus L. Edmisten, Attorney General, by George W. Boylan, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nE. J. Kromis, Jr., for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0363-01",
  "first_page_order": 395,
  "last_page_order": 398
}