State v. Jernigan

Stacy, C. J.

There was no error in submitting the case to the jury. Even on the defendant’s own statement, S. v. Edwards, 211 N.C. 555 , 191 S.E. 1 , it was a question for the twelve whether he used excessive force or was justified in taking the life of the deceased.

S. v. DeGraffenreid, 223 N.C. 461 , 27 S.E. 2d 130 ;

S. v. Baker, 222 N.C. 428 , 23 S.E. 2d 340 ;

S. v. Marshall, 208 N.C. 127 , 179 S.E. 427 . Moreover, giving the defendant full benefit of all he says, his statement hardly brings him within the principle of self-defense, certainly not as a matter of law dispensing with any determination of the facts by the jury.

S. v. Terrell, 212 N.C. 145 , 193 S.E. 161 ;

S. v. Koutro, 210 N.C. 144 , 185 S.E. 682 ;

S.

v. Marshall, supra; S. v. Glenn, 198 N.C. 79 , 150 S.E. 663 ;

S. v. Robinson, 188 N.C. 784 , 125 S.E. 617 .

The defendant relies on the cases of S. v. Ray, 229 N.C. 40 , 47 S.E. 2d 494 ;

S. v. Coffey, 228 N.C. 119 , 44 S.E. 2d 886 ;

S. v. Watts, 224 N.C. 771 , 32 S.E. 2d 348 ;

S. v. Fulcher, 184 N.C. 663 , 113 S.E. 769 , but in none of these cases was there a question of self-defense, or circumstances calling for explanation or exculpation on the part of the defendant. They are clearly distinguishable. Self-defense is an affirmative plea, with the burden of satisfaction cast upon the defendant.

S. v. DeGraffenreid, supra; S. v. Harris, 223 N.C. 697 , 28 S.E. 2d 232 ;

S. v. Baker, supra; S. v. Benson, 183 N.C. 795 , 111 S.E. 867 .

The exceptions to the charge on reasonable doubt are feckless in the light of the verdict, the defendant’s confession, and the record.

S. v. Wood, 230 N.C. 740 , 55 S.E. 2d 491 ;

S. v. Bryant, ante, 106.

No disturbance of the result of the trial is required by any of the assignments brought forward on the record.

No error.