State v. Higgs

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Higgs

256 S.E.2d 824, 42 N.C. App. 501, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2782

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 31, 1979

DocketNo. 799SC34

StatusPublished

This text of 256 S.E.2d 824 (State v. Higgs) 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. Higgs, 256 S.E.2d 824, 42 N.C. App. 501, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2782 (N.C. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

We reverse the superior court for failing to submit to the jury the charge of voluntary manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to have the different permissible verdicts arising on the evidence presented to the jury under proper instructions. The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such crime of lesser degree was committed. The presence of such evidence is the determinative factor. See State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E. 2d 149 (1971); State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E. 2d 235 (1971), and 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, § 115, p. 610 and cases cited therein. In this case the State’s evidence was in part [503]*503circumstantial. There was evidence that defendant said he had shot deceased. From this the jury could infer that he had intentionally shot deceased with malice. The jury did not have to make this inference however. State v. Hodges, 296 N.C. 66, 249 S.E. 2d 371 (1978). The jury could infer that defendant intentionally shot Jack Cates which proximately caused his death, but they would not have to infer it was done with malice. This would be voluntary manslaughter. State v. Rummage, 280 N.C. 51, 185 S.E. 2d 221 (1971). There being evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, it was error not to submit this charge to the jury.

New trial.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MITCHELL concur.

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

WEBB, Judge.

We reverse the superior court for failing to submit to the jury the charge of voluntary manslaughter. A defendant is entitled to have the different permissible verdicts arising on the evidence presented to the jury under proper instructions. The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such crime of lesser degree was committed. The presence of such evidence is the determinative factor. See State v. Griffin, 280 N.C. 142, 185 S.E. 2d 149 (1971); State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 184 S.E. 2d 235 (1971), and 4 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Criminal Law, § 115, p. 610 and cases cited therein. In this case the State’s evidence was in part [503]*503circumstantial. There was evidence that defendant said he had shot deceased. From this the jury could infer that he had intentionally shot deceased with malice. The jury did not have to make this inference however. State v. Hodges, 296 N.C. 66, 249 S.E. 2d 371 (1978). The jury could infer that defendant intentionally shot Jack Cates which proximately caused his death, but they would not have to infer it was done with malice. This would be voluntary manslaughter. State v. Rummage, 280 N.C. 51, 185 S.E. 2d 221 (1971). There being evidence from which the jury could have found the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, it was error not to submit this charge to the jury.

New trial.

Judges MARTIN (Robert M.) and MITCHELL concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 S.E.2d 824, 42 N.C. App. 501, 1979 N.C. App. LEXIS 2782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-higgs-ncctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack