{
  "id": 798817,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAMELA WARLICK GRANT",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Grant",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 67A95",
  "first_page": "289",
  "last_page": "291",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "343 N.C. 289"
    }
  ],
  "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": "73 ALR4th 993",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 4th",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 ALR3d 221",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 ALR2d 1170",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 S.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2481966
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "366 S.E.2d 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8522353
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/89/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "378 S.E.2d 8",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2481966
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0253-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 285,
    "char_count": 3688,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.672,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.028683139441720348
    },
    "sha256": "d412f92a99d4f12862671efd5a033182601b6bea3f5f0072503e7ac296a5643e",
    "simhash": "1:953a720baf0e0e56",
    "word_count": 615
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:14:44.802104+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Justice Parker concurring.",
      "Justice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
      "Justice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAMELA WARLICK GRANT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Justice.\nThe only assignment of error brought forward by the defendant is the failure of the court to charge on self-defense. She contends that the evidence that she was suffering from the battered woman syndrome entitled her to such a charge.\nThe defendant concedes that State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253, 378 S.E.2d 8 (1989), is contrary to her position. She asks us to overrule Norman.\nThe arguments the defendant advances as to why evidence that she suffered from the battered woman syndrome entitles her to a charge on self-defense were answered in Norman. We see no reason to change our position.\nNO ERROR.\nJustice ORR did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Justice."
      },
      {
        "text": "Justice Parker\nconcurring.\nI concur in the majority opinion; but having authored the majority opinion in the Court of Appeals in State v. Norman, 89 N.C. App. 384, 366 S.E.2d 586 (1988), rev\u2019d, 324 N.C. 253, 378 S.E.2d 8 (1989), I write this separate opinion to note that I am now bound by this Court\u2019s precedent in Norman. State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253, 378 S.E.2d 8 (1989).",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Justice Parker"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Jeffrey P. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "C. A. Horn for the defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. PAMELA WARLICK GRANT\nNo. 67A95\n(Filed 10 May 1996)\nHomicide \u00a7 588 (NCI4th)\u2014 battered woman syndrome \u2014 self-defense instruction not appropriate\nEvidence presented by the defendant in a first-degree murder trial that she suffered from battered woman syndrome did not entitle defendant to an instruction on self-defense.\nAm Jur 2d, Homicide \u00a7\u00a7 519-521.\nDuty of trial court to instruct on self-defense, in absence of request by accused. 56 ALR2d 1170.\nHomicide: modern status of rules as to burden and quantum of proof to show self-defense. 43 ALR3d 221.\nStandard for determination of reasonableness of criminal defendant\u2019s belief, for purposes of self-defense claim, that physical force is necessary \u2014 modern cases. 73 ALR4th 993.\nJustice Parker concurring.\nJustice Orr did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal as of right pursuant to N.C.G.S. \u00a7 7A-27(a) from a judgment imposing a sentence of life imprisonment entered by Allen (C. Walter), J., at the 18 July 1994 Criminal Session of Superior Court, Cleveland County, upon a jury verdict of guilty of first-degree murder. Heard in the Supreme Court on 10 October 1995.\nThe defendant was tried noncapitally for the murder of her husband. In her confession, which was introduced into evidence, she said that on 26 July 1992 at approximately 9:30 a.m., she stabbed her husband while he was asleep on a couch. He awoke and said, \u201cI ought to kill you.\u201d She then removed a .357 Magnum revolver from a cabinet and shot her husband three times. A forensic pathologist testified that in addition to the stab wound, there were three bullet wounds, one of which was to the brain of the deceased. In his opinion, the stab wound would not have immobilized the deceased for two or three minutes, but the wound to the brain would have rendered him unconscious immediately. Either of the two wounds would have been fatal.\nThe defendant introduced evidence including her own testimony of the egregious conduct by the deceased toward her over a period of years, which made her life unbearable. Dr. Thomas Toy, a practicing psychologist, testified that the defendant was suffering from the battered woman syndrome. Dr. Toy testified that in his opinion, the defendant did not know the difference between right and wrong in relation to her acts when she killed her husband.\nThe defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. She appealed to this Court.\nMichael F. Easley, Attorney General, by Jeffrey P. Gray, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nC. A. Horn for the defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0289-01",
  "first_page_order": 337,
  "last_page_order": 339
}