Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): firmness in fear of immediate bodily harm. State v. Roberts, 270 N.C. 655, 658, 155 S.E.2d 303, 305 (1967) (quotation marks and citations omitted). In this case, based on the underlying factual scenario giving rise to Defendant’s charges, we believe an assault with a deadly weapon was involved in the commission of the crime of resisting an officer. Specifically, Defendant’s actions of stating that he wasn’t going with the officers, running into the bedroom where he stood within arm’s reach of a loaded revolver, and resisting while being handcuffed and removed from the bedroom were an “unequivocal appearance of an attempt, with force and violence, to do some immediate physical injury to” the officers. Id.; see also State v. Barksdale, 181 N.C. App. 302, 307, 638 S.E.2d 579, 583 (2007) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). In sum, the trial court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an unloaded gun used in the commission of an aggravated assault is a deadly weapon (B) holding that an obstructionofjustice enhancement was appropriate based on the defendants assault on a witness after trial and rejecting the defendants argument that because the assault occurred after trial it could not impact the prosecution of his case (C) holding that resisting arrest is lesser offense of assault on an officer (D) holding that consent is not a defense to the charge of second degree assault where the assault occurred in the context of a prison fight between inmates (E) holding that we are not persuaded by defendants contention that an assault did not take place because he never made physical contact with the weapon in light of the evidence showing that the gun was only inches from defendants outstretched hand and that defendant was actively forcefully and to some degree successfully resisting the officers attempt to arrest him we do not believe in light of our states definition of assault that defendants failure to physically touch the weapon precludes the commission of an assault with the firearm
Output (English): holding that an obstructionofjustice enhancement was appropriate based on the defendants assault on a witness after trial and rejecting the defendants argument that because the assault occurred after trial it could not impact the prosecution of his case