State v. Knight

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Knight

391 S.E.2d 854, 98 N.C. App. 696, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 449

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJune 5, 1990

DocketNo. 8920SC940

StatusPublished

This text of 391 S.E.2d 854 (State v. Knight) 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. Knight, 391 S.E.2d 854, 98 N.C. App. 696, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 449 (N.C. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

PHILLIPS, Judge.

In appealing his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury defendant makes three contentions: That there is no evidence that he used a deadly weapon; that the court erred in refusing to charge on simple assault; and in charging that a knife was a deadly weapon, in that thére was no evidence that he used a knife. None of the contentions has merit.

The deadliness of the weapon used, that it was a knife and that the court’s charge was correct is indicated by evidence to the effect that the victim was seriously cut about the body many times, one of which sliced the end of his nose off. State v. Torain, 316 N.C. 111, 340 S.E.2d 465, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 836, 93 L.Ed.2d 77 (1986); State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 283 S.E.2d 719 (1981). No evidence having been presented that these serious injuries were not inflicted, or that they resulted from a simple assault of some kind, the court was not required to charge on this lesser included offense. State v. Wilson, 315 N.C. 157, 337 S.E.2d 470 (1985).

No error.

Judges ARNOLD and COZORT concur.

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

PHILLIPS, Judge.

In appealing his conviction of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury defendant makes three contentions: That there is no evidence that he used a deadly weapon; that the court erred in refusing to charge on simple assault; and in charging that a knife was a deadly weapon, in that thére was no evidence that he used a knife. None of the contentions has merit.

The deadliness of the weapon used, that it was a knife and that the court’s charge was correct is indicated by evidence to the effect that the victim was seriously cut about the body many times, one of which sliced the end of his nose off. State v. Torain, 316 N.C. 111, 340 S.E.2d 465, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 836, 93 L.Ed.2d 77 (1986); State v. Sturdivant, 304 N.C. 293, 283 S.E.2d 719 (1981). No evidence having been presented that these serious injuries were not inflicted, or that they resulted from a simple assault of some kind, the court was not required to charge on this lesser included offense. State v. Wilson, 315 N.C. 157, 337 S.E.2d 470 (1985).

No error.

Judges ARNOLD and COZORT concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

391 S.E.2d 854, 98 N.C. App. 696, 1990 N.C. App. LEXIS 449, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-knight-ncctapp-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack