From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Musselwhite

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1982
287 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1982)

Opinion

No. 153A81

Filed 3 March 1982

APPEAL from a decision of the Court of Appeals finding no error in the judgment entered by Battle, J., at the 27 October 1980 Criminal Session of ROBESON Superior Court. The Court of Appeals' opinion, 54 N.C. App. 68, 283 S.E.2d 149 (1981), is by Judge Robert M. Martin with Judge Harry C. Martin concurring. Judge Becton dissented and defendant appealed to this court pursuant to G.S. 7A-30 (2).

Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Walter M. Smith and Assistant Attorney General Reginald L. Watkins, for the State.

Adam Stein, Appellate Defender, and James H. Gold, Assistant Appellate Defender, for defendant.


Defendant was convicted of the offense of discharging a firearm into an occupied dwelling in violation of G.S. 14-34.1. The trial judge entered judgment imposing a prison sentence of not less than three nor more than five years.


Defendant contends that the Court of Appeals erred in holding (1) that defendant was not entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense, and (2) that the trial court adequately explained the principles of acting in concert as they applied to the evidence in this case.

We have carefully reviewed the opinion of the Court of Appeals and the briefs and authorities relating to defendant's contentions. We conclude that the result reached by the Court of Appeals, its reasoning, and the legal principles enunciated by it are correct and adopt that opinion as our own.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is

Affirmed.


Summaries of

State v. Musselwhite

Supreme Court of North Carolina
Mar 1, 1982
287 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1982)
Case details for

State v. Musselwhite

Case Details

Full title:STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JIMMY MUSSELWHITE

Court:Supreme Court of North Carolina

Date published: Mar 1, 1982

Citations

287 S.E.2d 897 (N.C. 1982)
287 S.E.2d 897

Citing Cases

Dixon v. Peters

We reject plaintiff's due process argument because (a) the statute is a rationally related means of…

State v. Jackson

Even if defendant did not fire his handgun, the jury was entitled to hold him responsible for the acts of his…