State v. Davis

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Davis

129 S.E.2d 894, 259 N.C. 138, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 494

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 20, 1963

Docket1

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 129 S.E.2d 894 (State v. Davis) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court 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. Davis, 129 S.E.2d 894, 259 N.C. 138, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 494 (N.C. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Defendant offered evidence of deceased’s reputation for violence. Additionally he sought to elicit by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses the fact that deceased had committed specific violent assaults on persons other than defendant. The evidence was, on objection by the State, excluded. Defendant assigns as error the *139 court’s refusal to permit him to show that deceased had at different times assaulted specifically named persons. The ruling was correct. It is in 'accord with prior decisions of this Court. S. v. Morgan, 245 N.C. 215, 95 S.E. 2d 507, and cases there cited.

Defendant assigns as error a portion of the court’s charge, contending the court unduly limited his rig'ht of self-defense. When the charge is read as a whole, as it must be, we are of the opinion and hold that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant’s claim of self-defense was as declared in S. v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427, quoted with approval in S. v. Fowler, 250 N. C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892.

Our review of the record fails to disclose error of which defendant can justly complain.

No error.

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

Per Curiam.

Defendant offered evidence of deceased’s reputation for violence. Additionally he sought to elicit by cross-examination of the State’s witnesses the fact that deceased had committed specific violent assaults on persons other than defendant. The evidence was, on objection by the State, excluded. Defendant assigns as error the *139 court’s refusal to permit him to show that deceased had at different times assaulted specifically named persons. The ruling was correct. It is in 'accord with prior decisions of this Court. S. v. Morgan, 245 N.C. 215, 95 S.E. 2d 507, and cases there cited.

Defendant assigns as error a portion of the court’s charge, contending the court unduly limited his rig'ht of self-defense. When the charge is read as a whole, as it must be, we are of the opinion and hold that the law given the jury for its guidance in determining the merits of defendant’s claim of self-defense was as declared in S. v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127, 179 S.E. 427, quoted with approval in S. v. Fowler, 250 N. C. 595, 108 S.E. 2d 892.

Our review of the record fails to disclose error of which defendant can justly complain.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 S.E.2d 894, 259 N.C. 138, 1963 N.C. LEXIS 494, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-davis-nc-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack