State v. Thompson

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Thompson

219 S.E.2d 566, 27 N.C. App. 576, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1908

Court of Appeals of North Carolina·Decided November 19, 1975·No. 7510SC483·Published·Cited by 12 cases

Opinion

CLARK, Judge.

In his final mandate to the jury the trial judge charged the jury to return a verdict of guilty of assault on a female if it found from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “grabbed or took Vivian Thompson by the arm in such a fashion and in such a manner as to put her in fear of bodily harm” and that she was a female person and he, the defendant, was a male person. Defendant assigns this portion of the charge as error and contends that it fails to include the elements of assault in that the word “immediate” did not precede the words “bodily harm.”

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has approved the broad definition that an assault is a show of violence causing a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. State v. Allen, 245 N.C. 185, 95 S.E. 2d 526 (1956) ; State v. Hill, 6 N.C. App. 365, 170 S.E. 2d 99 (1969). The Court has also approved the general common law rule that an assault is an intentional offer or attempt by force or violence to do injury to the person of another. State v. Hefner, 199 N.C. 778, 155 S.E. 879 (1930).

The evidence for the State discloses a battery, the forceful pulling and twisting of her arm. While every battery includes an assault, every assault does not include a battery; A battery *578 is the unlawful application of force to the person of another by the agressor himself or by some substance which he., puts in motion. State v. Hefner, supra. Where “the evidence discloses an actual battery, whether the victim is ‘put in fear’ is in-apposite.” State v. Lassiter, 18 N.C. App. 208, 212, 196 S.E. 2d 592, 595 (1973).

While we do not commend the trial judge’s final mandate as a model of clarity and accuracy, the State’s evidence tends to show bodily harm occurring at the time of the battery; therefore, the failure to include the word “immediate” before the words “bodily harm” is not error.

We have carefully examined the other assignments of error, and we' find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and no prejudicial error in the admission of evidence challenged by the defendant. ..

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

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

CLARK, Judge.

In his final mandate to the jury the trial judge charged the jury to return a verdict of guilty of assault on a female if it found from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant “grabbed or took Vivian Thompson by the arm in such a fashion and in such a manner as to put her in fear of bodily harm” and that she was a female person and he, the defendant, was a male person. Defendant assigns this portion of the charge as error and contends that it fails to include the elements of assault in that the word “immediate” did not precede the words “bodily harm.”

The Supreme Court of North Carolina has approved the broad definition that an assault is a show of violence causing a reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm. State v. Allen, 245 N.C. 185, 95 S.E. 2d 526 (1956) ; State v. Hill, 6 N.C. App. 365, 170 S.E. 2d 99 (1969). The Court has also approved the general common law rule that an assault is an intentional offer or attempt by force or violence to do injury to the person of another. State v. Hefner, 199 N.C. 778, 155 S.E. 879 (1930).

The evidence for the State discloses a battery, the forceful pulling and twisting of her arm. While every battery includes an assault, every assault does not include a battery; A battery *578 is the unlawful application of force to the person of another by the agressor himself or by some substance which he., puts in motion. State v. Hefner, supra. Where “the evidence discloses an actual battery, whether the victim is ‘put in fear’ is in-apposite.” State v. Lassiter, 18 N.C. App. 208, 212, 196 S.E. 2d 592, 595 (1973).

While we do not commend the trial judge’s final mandate as a model of clarity and accuracy, the State’s evidence tends to show bodily harm occurring at the time of the battery; therefore, the failure to include the word “immediate” before the words “bodily harm” is not error.

We have carefully examined the other assignments of error, and we' find the evidence sufficient to support the verdict and no prejudicial error in the admission of evidence challenged by the defendant. ..

No error.

Judges Britt and Parker concur.

State v. Thompson, 219 S.E.2d 566, 27 N.C. App. 576, 1975 N.C. App. LEXIS 1908 (N.C. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

219 S.E.2d 566 (State v. Thompson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related