Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

263 N.C. 95

138 S.E.2d 819

State v. Matthews

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided November 25, 1964

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1964-11-25

Cited by 10 later decisions — most recently November 1971

10 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““The intensity of the proof required is that the jury must be satisfied. Even proof by the greater weight of the evidence may be sufficient to satisfy the jury. Hence, the correct rule as to the intensity of such proof is that when the intentional killing of a human being with a deadly weapon is admitted, or is established by the evidence, ‘the law then casts upon the defendant the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the jury — not by the greater weight of the evidence nor beyond a reasonable doubt — but simply to the satisfaction of the jury . . . the legal provocation that will rob the crime of malice and thus reduce it to manslaughter, or that will excuse it altogether upon the grounds of self-defense, . . .’ ””

quoted by 2 later decisions, including State v. Fowler, State v. Phillips

““When an intentional killing is admitted or established, the law presumes malice from the use of a deadly weapon. And the defendant is guilty of murder in the second degree unless he can satisfy the jury of the truth of facts which justify his act or mitigate it to manslaughter. “The burden is on the defendant to establish such facts to the satisfaction of the jury, unless they arise out of the evidence against him. However, to meet the burden the defendant is not required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the facts he relies on in mitigation, justification or excuse. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt calls for the highest intensity of proof known to our law. “To satisfy a jury beyond a reasonable doubt means that they must be fully satisfied, or entirely convinced, or satisfied to a moral certainty of the truth of the charge. But the defend ant does not meet the requirement of the law when he satisfies the jury merely by the greater weight of the evidence of the truth of the facts he relies on in mitigation, justification or excuse. (Emphasis added.) “By the greater weight of the evidence, that is more convincing, or evidence that carries greater weight, greater assurance than that which is offered in opposition thereto, (sic) “By the phrase ‘to the satisfaction of the jury’ is considered to bear a stronger intensity of proof than that by the greater weight or preponderance of the evidence. “So, to prove a fact or facts to the satisfaction of the jw'y requires a higher degree”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 1 N.C. App. 150 - State v. Calloway

Relies on State v. . Benson · State v. . Prince

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1964-11-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Defendant assigns as error the following portion of the charge on her right of self-defense:

“(B)ut the defendant does not meet the requirement of the law when she satisfied you members of the jury merely by the greater weight of the truth of facts she relies on in mitigation, justification or excuse ... So the Court charges you that for a person to prove *96 to the satisfaction of you members of the jury, that that is a degree of proof which might be said to be in between the proof beyond a reasonable doubt and proof by the greater weight of the evidence. So to prove a fact or facts to the satisfaction of you members of the jury requires a higher degree of proof and signifies something more than a belief founded upon the greater weight of the evidence, but it does not require as high a degree or as strong an intensity of proof as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.”

¶2 The substance of this charge was held to be reversible error in State v. Prince, 223 N.C. 392, 26 S.E. 2d 875, wherein this Court laid down the correct rule as follows:

“The intensity of the proof required is that the jury must be satisfied. Even proof by the greater weight of the evidence may be sufficient to satisfy the jury. Hence, the correct rule as to the intensity of such proof is that when the intentional killing of a human being with a deadly weapon is admitted, or is established by the evidence, 'the law then casts upon the defendant the burden of proving to the satisfaction of the jury- — -not by the greater weight of the evidence nor beyond a reasonable doubt — but simply to the satisfaction of the jury . . . the legal provocation that will rob the crime of malice and thus reduce it to manslaughter, or that will excuse it altogether upon the grounds of self-defense, accident or misadventure.’ S. v. Benson, 183 N.C. 795, 111 S.E. 869.” Id. at 393, 26 S.E. 2d at 876.

¶3 His Honor’s charge bore too heavily against defendant. Therefore, there must be a

¶4 New trial.

/263/nc/95 · .json · Public domain