State v. Cantrell

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Cantrell

211 S.E.2d 525, 24 N.C. App. 575, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2437

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedFebruary 5, 1975

DocketNo. 7426SC949

StatusPublished

This text of 211 S.E.2d 525 (State v. Cantrell) 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. Cantrell, 211 S.E.2d 525, 24 N.C. App. 575, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2437 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

AENOLD, Judge.

Defendant’s two assignments of error relate to the charge of the court. He first contends that the court shifted the burden of proof to defendant by instructing on the defense of self-defense and its applicability to the offense charged and lesser included offenses without reiterating the presumptions of innocence. We disagree. The Court repeatedly instructed that the burden of proof was oh the State, and that the defendant should be acquitted if there was any reasonable doubt of his guilt. “Eeasonable doubt” was fully defined. The charge was sufficient. State v. Flippin, 280 N.C. 682, 186 S.E. 2d 917. See also 3 Strong N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 112; pp. 4-5.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court’s definition of the defense of self-defense was erroneous is equally without merit. Eead as a whole, the language used effectively conveyed to the jury that it must determine the reasonableness of defendant’s belief in the necessity of force from the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time of the assault. See State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 383, 200 S.E. 2d 596; cf. State v. Francis, 252 N.C. 57, 112 S.E. 2d 756.

We find no error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin concur.

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

AENOLD, Judge.

Defendant’s two assignments of error relate to the charge of the court. He first contends that the court shifted the burden of proof to defendant by instructing on the defense of self-defense and its applicability to the offense charged and lesser included offenses without reiterating the presumptions of innocence. We disagree. The Court repeatedly instructed that the burden of proof was oh the State, and that the defendant should be acquitted if there was any reasonable doubt of his guilt. “Eeasonable doubt” was fully defined. The charge was sufficient. State v. Flippin, 280 N.C. 682, 186 S.E. 2d 917. See also 3 Strong N. C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, § 112; pp. 4-5.

Defendant’s contention that the trial court’s definition of the defense of self-defense was erroneous is equally without merit. Eead as a whole, the language used effectively conveyed to the jury that it must determine the reasonableness of defendant’s belief in the necessity of force from the circumstances as they appeared to him at the time of the assault. See State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 383, 200 S.E. 2d 596; cf. State v. Francis, 252 N.C. 57, 112 S.E. 2d 756.

We find no error.

No error.

Judges Vaughn and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 S.E.2d 525, 24 N.C. App. 575, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 2437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-cantrell-ncctapp-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack