State v. Turner

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Turner

222 S.E.2d 745, 29 N.C. App. 33, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2373

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 17, 1976

DocketNo. 7529SC871

StatusPublished

This text of 222 S.E.2d 745 (State v. Turner) 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. Turner, 222 S.E.2d 745, 29 N.C. App. 33, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2373 (N.C. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

BRITT, Judge.

All of defendant’s assignments of error relate to the court’s instructions to the jury. One of the challenged instructions reads as follows:

Now, Members of the Jury, the burden is on the defendant to prove self-defense to the satisfaction of the Jury and to prove he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.

The court committed error in placing the burden on defendant to prove self-defense. In State v. Fletcher, 268 N.C. 140, 142, 150 S.E. 2d 54, 56 (1966), the court, speaking through [35]*35Justice (later Chief Justice) Bobbitt, said: “ In prosecutions for felonious assault and for assault with a deadly weapon, it is not incumbent on a defendant to satisfy the jury he acted in self-defense. On the contrary, the burden of proof rests on the State throughout the trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully assaulted the alleged victim. S. v. Warren, 242 N.C. 581, 89 S.E. 2d 109, and cases cited; S. v. Sandlin, 251 N.C. 81, 110 S.E. 2d 481; S. v. Cloer, 266 N.C. 672, 146 S.E. 2d 815.”

Since the question of self-defense was a substantial feature of this case, we are compelled to hold that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial to defendant, entitling him to a new trial.

We find is unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges Hedrick and Martin concur.

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

BRITT, Judge.

All of defendant’s assignments of error relate to the court’s instructions to the jury. One of the challenged instructions reads as follows:

Now, Members of the Jury, the burden is on the defendant to prove self-defense to the satisfaction of the Jury and to prove he used no more force than was or reasonably appeared necessary under the circumstances to protect himself from death or great bodily harm.

The court committed error in placing the burden on defendant to prove self-defense. In State v. Fletcher, 268 N.C. 140, 142, 150 S.E. 2d 54, 56 (1966), the court, speaking through [35]*35Justice (later Chief Justice) Bobbitt, said: “ In prosecutions for felonious assault and for assault with a deadly weapon, it is not incumbent on a defendant to satisfy the jury he acted in self-defense. On the contrary, the burden of proof rests on the State throughout the trial to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant unlawfully assaulted the alleged victim. S. v. Warren, 242 N.C. 581, 89 S.E. 2d 109, and cases cited; S. v. Sandlin, 251 N.C. 81, 110 S.E. 2d 481; S. v. Cloer, 266 N.C. 672, 146 S.E. 2d 815.”

Since the question of self-defense was a substantial feature of this case, we are compelled to hold that the erroneous instruction was prejudicial to defendant, entitling him to a new trial.

We find is unnecessary to discuss the other assignments of error.

New trial.

Judges Hedrick and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 S.E.2d 745, 29 N.C. App. 33, 1976 N.C. App. LEXIS 2373, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-turner-ncctapp-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack