{
  "id": 2483195,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EDWARD REED, SR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reed",
  "decision_date": "1989-06-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 130A88",
  "first_page": "535",
  "last_page": "538",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 N.C. 535"
    }
  ],
  "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": "150 S.E. 2d 406",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561067
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 S.E. 2d 748",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2483965
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 S.E. 2d 563",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 N.C. 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561161
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/307/0152-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 363,
    "char_count": 5902,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.828,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08129083973621629
    },
    "sha256": "04004d51157c99e02758ae4e07593a2d0720945196556a0171ff1aaf0273a5e1",
    "simhash": "1:ef031272563e50ff",
    "word_count": 1051
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:53.264050+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EDWARD REED, SR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe defendant has brought forward six assignments of error. We shall discuss one of them. While the defendant was testifying on direct examination the following colloquy occurred:\nQ: What happened, after you and Mr. Pearce rolled into the ditch?\nA: I shook him loose; I got loose from him. I ran up from the embankment. I seen the gun and grabbed the gun. Bobby turned around and he was running at me with his head down. I knew he was going to hurt me. I picked up the gun and shot him.\nQ: How many times did you shoot him?\nA: As many times as the gun will click. I pulled the trigger on the gun as many times as it will click.\nQ: Why do you say he was going to hurt you?\nObjection Sustained\nQ: How did you feel as Mr. Pearce was coming towards you? Objection Sustained\nThe defendant made an offer of proof as to what his testimony would have been if the objections had not been sustained. It is as follows:\nQ: Mr. Reed, how did you feel when you saw Bobby Pearce coming towards you behind the car?\nA: I felt fearful of my life and the life of my family.\nQ: Why did you fear for your life and the life of your family?\nA: Bobby is a dangerous person. When he gets that drunk he\u2019s really violent.\nIn order to establish self-defense the jury must be satisfied that the defendant believed it was necessary to kill the deceased in order to save himself from death or great bodily harm. State v. Bush, 307 N.C. 152, 297 S.E. 2d 563 (1982). The defendant was prevented from testifying to an essential element of his defense, his fear for his life. This was error. We recently granted a new trial for a similar error in State v. Webster, 324 N.C. 385, 378 S.E. 2d 748 (1989).\nThe State contends that this was harmless error. It says that the defendant was allowed to testify, \u201cI knew he was going to hurt me,\u201d and it would have been repetitious to allow the defendant to testify how he felt when Bobby Pearce was advancing toward him. The State says the jury could infer from all the evidence of the defendant that he feared for his life and he was not harmed by the exclusion of this testimony. We believe the defendant should have been allowed to testify explicitly to this matter which went to the heart of his case. The State also contends that the evidence against the defendant was strong and the physical evidence was inconsistent with the defendant\u2019s testimony. For these reasons the State says it would not have changed the outcome of the trial if the objection to the question had not been sustained. It is true that much of the evidence pointed to the guilt of the defendant. We believe, however, that if the defendant had been allowed to testify to a matter so crucial to his defense there is a reasonable possibility a different result would have been reached at the trial. See N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1443(a) and State v. Turner, 268 N.C. 225, 150 S.E. 2d 406 (1966). This entitles defendant to a new trial.\nWe do not pass on the defendant\u2019s other assignments of error because the questions they raise may not recur at a new trial.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by G. Lawrence Reeves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Staples Hughes, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT EDWARD REED, SR.\nNo. 130A88\n(Filed 8 June 1989)\nHomicide \u00a7 19\u2014 murder \u2014 self-defense\u2014testimony that defendant feared for his life excluded \u2014 error\nThe trial court erred in a prosecution for first degree murder by refusing to allow defendant to testify that he feared for his life and the life of his family as the victim rushed toward him, and that the victim was violent when drunk. Defendant was prevented from testifying to an essential element of his defense and, even though the State argued that the jury could have inferred from all the evidence that defendant feared for his life, defendant should have been allowed to testify explicitly to this matter which went to the heart of his case.\nAPPEAL as of right by the defendant pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a life sentence entered by Davis (James CJ, J., at the 2 November 1987 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Camden County. Heard in the Supreme Court 11 May 1989.\nThe defendant was tried for first degree murder. The State\u2019s evidence showed the defendant, the defendant\u2019s wife, the defendant\u2019s stepson, and Bobby Pearce were riding in an automobile from Durham to Moyock. The automobile was stopped in Camden County in order for Bobby Pearce to relieve himself. Approximately two minutes after Bobby Pearce left the automobile he called the defendant, who left the automobile. A few seconds later the stepson heard the sound of gunshots. The defendant then entered the automobile and proceeded with his wife and stepson to Moyock. They returned to Durham later in the day. The stepson testified that a pistol was thrown from the automobile before they reached Moyock.\nBobby Pearce\u2019s body was found two days later lying next to a ditch approximately ten feet from the road. He had been shot three times.\nThe defendant testified that when he left the automobile and walked toward Bobby Pearce, he saw that Pearce was holding a beer bottle in his left hand and a gun in his right hand. Pearce said to the defendant \u201cyou\u2019re first,\u201d and the two men struggled for the gun. The defendant testified that Bobby Pearce hit him in the head with the bottle and the gun fell from Pearce\u2019s hand. The two men rolled into the ditch. The defendant then ran up the embankment and picked up the gun. The defendant testified further that Bobby Pearce ran toward the defendant with his head down \u201clike a bull,\u201d and the defendant shot him.\nThe defendant was convicted of first degree murder. The State conceded there were no aggravating circumstances and the defendant was sentenced to life in prison. He appealed.\nLacy H. Thornburg, Attorney General, by G. Lawrence Reeves, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nMalcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender, by Staples Hughes, Assistant Appellate Defender, for the defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0535-01",
  "first_page_order": 573,
  "last_page_order": 576
}