{
  "id": 4726467,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARVEY BLANKENSHIP",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blankenship",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 552PA86",
  "first_page": "152",
  "last_page": "155",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "320 N.C. 152"
    }
  ],
  "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": "346 S.E. 2d 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N.C. App. 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8358726
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/82/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E. 2d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "569",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561161
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "160",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "244 S.E. 2d 155",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no self-defense instruction warranted where defendant holding gun by side and victim struck it causing it to discharge"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 737",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574594,
        8574566,
        8574510,
        8574546,
        8574524
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no self-defense instruction warranted where defendant holding gun by side and victim struck it causing it to discharge"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0737-05",
        "/nc/294/0737-04",
        "/nc/294/0737-01",
        "/nc/294/0737-03",
        "/nc/294/0737-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 S.E. 2d 633",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no self-defense instruction warranted where defendant holding gun by side and victim struck it causing it to discharge"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8547695
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "no self-defense instruction warranted where defendant holding gun by side and victim struck it causing it to discharge"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/35/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 465,
    "char_count": 8030,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.834,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.728280177240505e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4942732182455425
    },
    "sha256": "2352b09bbc850e48a23b25bb85bf4dc9919e97822573cbab90e878fe228ee62e",
    "simhash": "1:fdde763cf677258c",
    "word_count": 1412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:33:25.134905+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justices WEBB and WHICHARD did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARVEY BLANKENSHIP"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Justice.\nThe defendant contended in the Court of Appeals that the trial court had committed reversible error by failing to instruct the jury on a theory of self-defense. The Court of Appeals agreed and awarded the defendant a new trial. We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 22 November 1984, Joy Wright invited Betty Jean Dixon to her apartment in Washington, North Carolina (the original city of that name in this country) for Thanksgiving dinner. Wright had been living with her boyfriend, the victim Charles S. Foster, for two months. Dixon brought the defendant, William Harvey Blankenship, and her brother with her. Wright had never met the defendant before.\nAfter they drank two six-packs of beer, Wright said that her boyfriend got mean when he was drinking and liked to fight. She thought he might be drinking that day and might not like the two men and the two women being together in the apartment. If he said anything, Wright told them all, the two men would have to leave.\nThe defendant gave Betty Jean Dixon $20.00 with which to buy more beer. Joy Wright accompanied her to the store. On their way out of the apartment, they met the victim Foster. Wright told him about her visitors. The victim said, \u201cI don\u2019t like [the defendant]. He sent a lot of my friends to prison at More-head, and I don\u2019t want to be around him.\u201d Wright told Foster that he was the man of the house and should ask the defendant Blankenship to leave if he did not want him there. As the two women returned from the store, the defendant ran across the yard toward them. Wright told the defendant that he should leave if the victim had said anything to him.\nThe defendant Blankenship returned to his mother\u2019s house where his girlfriend, Martha Harrison, also lived. He slammed the living room door with such force that a picture fell off the wall. He said a man had called him a \u201cnarc\u201d and that he was going to kill the man. The defendant changed into his \u201cass kicking outfit\u201d which included a knife. Around 6:00 p.m., the defendant gave a friend $60.00 for a .38 caliber pistol. He test-fired it on the way to Wright\u2019s apartment. He gave his knife to Harrison to hold.\nMeanwhile, various other guests arrived at Wright\u2019s for dinner. Around 6:30 p.m., the defendant came in Wright\u2019s back door demanding, \u201cWho called me a narc?\u201d The victim walked toward the defendant saying, \u201cI told you that I didn\u2019t want you in here.\u201d The defendant shot the victim from three to four feet away and threatened to \u201cblow the brains out\u201d of the others in the living room if they moved. The defendant later returned the gun to his friend, saying he no longer wanted it, and got his money back.\nThe defendant testified that when the victim had entered the apartment earlier that afternoon, the defendant had tried to be friendly to him. The victim called him \u201ca snitch from Morehead\u201d and asked if the defendant wanted to fight. The defendant left Wright\u2019s apartment and went home. He and his girlfriend then drove around, trying to find someone to aid him in getting his change from the $20.00 he had given Betty Jean Dixon. One friend refused to go with him, but gave him a .38 caliber pistol to use for protection from the victim. When they went to Wright\u2019s, the defendant told Harrison that she should go inside if a man answered the door, because the defendant did not want to fight. If a woman answered the door, the defendant would go inside. When the defendant knocked, a woman said, \u201cCome in.\u201d The defendant entered while Harrison stayed on the doorstep.\nThe defendant testified that when he entered, the victim said, \u201cI didn\u2019t like your looks the first time you were here. Now I\u2019m going to kick your ass good.\u201d The victim grabbed the defendant by the neck and slammed him against the door. The defendant hit him, but the victim would not let go. The defendant\u2019s feet were not touching the floor. He pulled out his gun to hit the victim on the head with it, but the victim grabbed it by the barrel and said, \u201cGive it here.\u201d The victim jerked and twisted the gun. It fired, wounding him in the stomach. He died around 4:00 a.m. The defendant further testified: \u201c[I]t never occurred to me to shoot .... If it hadn\u2019t went off when it did, ... I don\u2019t know whether I would have shot or not, but he had hold of the gun, so I couldn\u2019t get it up to hit him with it.\u201d\nThe trial court did not charge the jury on a theory of self-defense, despite the defendant\u2019s request. The Court of Appeals concluded that this was reversible error and awarded the defendant a new trial.\nThe State contends that the trial court properly refused to instruct the jury on a theory of self-defense, because no evidence tended to show that the defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill the victim to protect himself from death or great bodily harm. We agree.\nEven in the light mo\u00e1t favorable to the defendant, the evidence tended to show only that he intended to repel the victim with non-deadly force and was equivocal about whether he would have ever formed an intention to shoot, reasonable or not. Even if at some later point he had formed an intent to shoot, it does not follow necessarily that he would have intended to shoot to kill. See State v. Berry, 35 N.C. App. 128, 240 S.E. 2d 633, cert. denied, 294 N.C. 737, 244 S.E. 2d 155 (1978) (no self-defense instruction warranted where defendant holding gun by side and victim struck it causing it to discharge). Where, as in the present case, \u201cthere is no evidence from which the jury reasonably could find that the defendant in fact believed that it was necessary to kill his adversary to protect himself from death or great bodily harm, the defendant is not entitled to have the jury instructed on self-defense.\u201d State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 160, 297 S.E. 2d 563, 569 (1982) (emphasis added). Therefore, the trial court was correct in refusing to instruct the jury on either perfect or imperfect self-defense. Id.\nIn sum, the defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the shooting was an accident. The trial court gave proper instructions to the jury concerning the defense of accident. The evidence did not warrant more.\nWe hold that the Court of Appeals improperly awarded the defendant a new trial on this issue. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and this case is remanded to it for its consideration of the defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error.\nReversed and remanded.\nJustices WEBB and WHICHARD did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Steven F. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, for the State, appellant.",
      "Wayland J. Sermons, Jr. for the defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM HARVEY BLANKENSHIP\nNo. 552PA86\n(Filed 7 July 1987)\nHomicide g 28.2\u2014 failure to instruct on self-defense \u2014 no error\nThe Court of Appeals improperly awarded a new trial in a homicide prosecution based on the trial court\u2019s failure to charge the jury on self-defense where defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the shooting was an accident; there was no evidence to show that defendant in fact formed a belief that it was necessary to kill the victim to protect himself; and the trial court gave proper instructions concerning the defense of accident.\nJustices Webb and Whichard did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nON discretionary review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, 82 N.C. App. 285, 346 S.E. 2d 171 (1986), vacating judgment entered by Barefoot, J., at the 12 August 1985 Session of Superior Court, BEAUFORT County, and awarding the defendant a new trial.\nThe defendant was indicted for first degree murder. A jury found him guilty of second degree murder. He was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of forty years. The Court of Appeals awarded the defendant a new trial. The State\u2019s petition for discretionary review was allowed by the Supreme Court on 6 January 1987. Heard in the Supreme Court on 13 May 1987.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by Steven F. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, for the State, appellant.\nWayland J. Sermons, Jr. for the defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0152-01",
  "first_page_order": 184,
  "last_page_order": 187
}