State v. Douglas

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Douglas

192 S.E.2d 643, 16 N.C. App. 597, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1770

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedNovember 22, 1972

Docket7226SC627

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 192 S.E.2d 643 (State v. Douglas) 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. Douglas, 192 S.E.2d 643, 16 N.C. App. 597, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1770 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

BROCK, Judge.

Case number 71CR65216 (assault on Howard Pettice).

Defendant assigns as error the charge of the court respecting defendant’s right to act in self-defense. We think the charge is clear and fair, and, when read in context, submitted the case to the jury upon applicable principles of law. This assignment of error is overruled.

*600 Case number 70CR79662 (assault on Marie Pettice).

Defendant assigns' as error the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to his defense of an accidental shooting. This assignment of error is sustained. Defendant’s entire defense in this case was his contention that the shot which hit Marie Pettice was accidentally fired when she accidentally hit the pistol after the scuffle with Howard Pettice had concluded. This was a substantial feature of defendant’s defense and he was entitled to an instruction thereon without special request. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2nd, Criminal Law, § 113, p. 10.

In case number 71CR65216 (assault on Howard Pettice) : No error.

In case number 70CR79662 (assault on Marie Pettice) : New trial.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Britt concur.

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

BROCK, Judge.

Case number 71CR65216 (assault on Howard Pettice).

Defendant assigns as error the charge of the court respecting defendant’s right to act in self-defense. We think the charge is clear and fair, and, when read in context, submitted the case to the jury upon applicable principles of law. This assignment of error is overruled.

*600 Case number 70CR79662 (assault on Marie Pettice).

Defendant assigns' as error the failure of the court to instruct the jury upon the law applicable to his defense of an accidental shooting. This assignment of error is sustained. Defendant’s entire defense in this case was his contention that the shot which hit Marie Pettice was accidentally fired when she accidentally hit the pistol after the scuffle with Howard Pettice had concluded. This was a substantial feature of defendant’s defense and he was entitled to an instruction thereon without special request. 3 Strong, N. C. Index 2nd, Criminal Law, § 113, p. 10.

In case number 71CR65216 (assault on Howard Pettice) : No error.

In case number 70CR79662 (assault on Marie Pettice) : New trial.

Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Britt concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

192 S.E.2d 643, 16 N.C. App. 597, 1972 N.C. App. LEXIS 1770, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-douglas-ncctapp-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack