State v. CephusState v. Cephus
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Barnhill
The court below in its charge instructed the jury in part as follows :
“The burden of proоf as to the plea of self-defense is on the defendant to satisfy the jury, not beyond a reasonable doubt nor by the greater weight of the evidence, but simply to satisfy the jury that he was fighting in his own self-defense and used no more force than was reasonably necessary for his protection.”
This instruction must be held for error which entitles the defendant to a new trial.
It is true that in homicide cases when it is made to appear that defendant intentionally assaults another with a deadly weapon, inflicting a wound which proximately causes the death of thе person assaulted, the law raises certain presumptions of fact whiсh, nothing else appearing, require a verdict of murder in the second degrеe. And upon the admission or proof of such facts, the law casts upon the defendant the burden of proving facts and circumstances which will rebut the prеsumption of malice or which will excuse the homicide altogether on the grounds of self-defense, accident, or misadventure. But we need not now enter into a discussion of the philosophy underlying that rule for it has no applicаtion here.
In criminal prosecutions a defendant’s plea of not guilty clothes him
Defendant’s evidence tending to show that be did not commit an assault upon, or willingly engage in an affray with, tbe prosecuting witness, but only did wbat reasonably appeared tо bim to be necessary to ward off or repel an assault being made on bim is offered to rebut, impeach, or discredit tbe evidence offered by tbe Stаte or to “muddy tbe waters” so as to create a reasonable doubt аs to bis guilt.
“If the defendant’s evidence raised a reasonable doubt as to bis guilt, or if sucb evidence caused to linger in the minds of the jury from the original presumptiоn of innocence a reasonable doubt as to bis guilt, or if upon all the еvidence the jury entertained a reasonable doubt as to bis guilt the defendаnt was entitled to a verdict of not guilty, altbougb the defendant’s evidence may nоt bave satisfied the jury of matters in justification or excuse.” S. v. Carver, supra; S. v. Murphrey, 186 N.C. 113, 118 S.E. 894.
Tbe rule is tbe same as in cases where tbe defendant undertakes to prove an alibi. S. v. Minton, 234 N.C. 716, 68 S.E. 2d 844; S. v. Bridgers, 233 N.C. 577, 64 S.E. 2d 867.
There are, of course, certain exceptions to tbe rule that tbe burden in a сriminal prosecution never shifts to tbe defendant as when a defendant seеks to bring himself within an exceptive provision of a criminal statute. But the generаl rule and not tbe exceptions must be applied here.
To follow any оther rule would deprive tbe defendant of tbe presumption of innocenсe and tend to confuse. Just when does tbe burden shift? Does defendant’s reliancе on evidence tending to show be fought only in bis own necessary self-defense аltogether relieve tbe State of any-burden? Must tbe jury decline to consider tbе evidence of self-defense on tbe primary issue of guilt ? A charge which attеmpted to answer these questions would be, of necessity, inconsistent and cоnflicting.
Here tbe State must prove that tbe defendant willingly engaged in an affray with, оr unlawfully assaulted, tbe prosecuting witness and that in so doing be used a deadly weаpon. Proof of these facts rebuts any suggestion of self-defense. To say thаt tbe burden then shifts to tbe defendant to prove that be fought only in bis own necessary self-defense is too illogical to find favor with this Court. Tbe State must first prove bis guilt, and then be must prove bis innocence. Sucb is not tbe law in this jurisdiction.
New trial.