State v. Best

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Best

229 S.E.2d 202, 31 N.C. App. 389, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2009

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 3, 1976

Docket7615SC453

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 229 S.E.2d 202 (State v. Best) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Best, 229 S.E.2d 202, 31 N.C. App. 389, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2009 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

CLARK, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the law of shooting by accident or misadventure. Defendant did not request such an instruction.

The trial judge has a duty to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” G.S. 1-180. Every substantial feature of the case arising on the evidence must be presented to the jury even without a special request for instructions on the issue. State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974). In a case where the evidence offered by one party tends to show accident, it is not enough for the trial judge to charge that the State must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge must also clearly explain that accident is the antithesis of intent. This was not done here. Two recent opinions by this Court have made clear this duty with respect to the law of accident in appropriate cases, and we see no reason to elaborate on their wisdom. State v. Wright, 28 N.C. App. 481, 221 S.E. 2d 745 (1976) ; State v. Moore, 26 N.C. App. 193, 215 S.E. 2d 171 (1975).

We order a

New trial.

Judges Morris and Arnold concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

CLARK, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the failure of the trial court to charge the jury on the law of shooting by accident or misadventure. Defendant did not request such an instruction.

The trial judge has a duty to “declare and explain the law arising on the evidence given in the case.” G.S. 1-180. Every substantial feature of the case arising on the evidence must be presented to the jury even without a special request for instructions on the issue. State v. Dooley, 285 N.C. 158, 203 S.E. 2d 815 (1974). In a case where the evidence offered by one party tends to show accident, it is not enough for the trial judge to charge that the State must prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt. The judge must also clearly explain that accident is the antithesis of intent. This was not done here. Two recent opinions by this Court have made clear this duty with respect to the law of accident in appropriate cases, and we see no reason to elaborate on their wisdom. State v. Wright, 28 N.C. App. 481, 221 S.E. 2d 745 (1976) ; State v. Moore, 26 N.C. App. 193, 215 S.E. 2d 171 (1975).

We order a

New trial.

Judges Morris and Arnold concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 S.E.2d 202, 31 N.C. App. 389, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-best-ncctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack