Case Name: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORMAN HICKS
Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1973-10-10
Citations: 19 N.C. App. 587
Docket Number: No. 7310SC620
Parties: STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORMAN HICKS
Judges: Judges Campbell and Morris concur.
Reporter: North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports
Volume: 19
Pages: 587–588

Head Matter:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NORMAN HICKS
No. 7310SC620
(Filed 10 October 1973)
Appeal by defendant from Hobgood, Judge, 9 April 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Wake County.
Defendant was charged in a bill of indictment, proper in form, with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury upon one David Hamilton. He entered a plea of not guilty and was convicted by a jury.
The State’s evidence tended to show that on 10 August 1972 the defendant, an inmate in Central Prison, became involved in an argument with a fellow prisoner, David Hamilton. During the course of the argument defendant produced a dagger-like weapon referred to as a “shank” and. stabbed Hamilton several times in the back, lungs, and elsewhere about the body, causing serious injuries.
The defendant presented several witnesses who testified in effect that Hamilton had assaulted him and that he was acting in self-defense.
From judgment imposing a prison sentence of 10 years, defendant appeals.
Attorney General Morgan, by Associate Attorney Emerson D. Wall, for the State.
Carl W. Hibbert for defendant appellant.

Opinion:
BALEY, Judge.
After a careful examination of the record, we find no error in the proceedings in the court below. The trial court properly instructed the jury upon the elements of the offense charged in the bill of indictment and any lessor included offenses and upon the. elements of self-defense, upon which the defendant relied. The evidence for both the State and the defendant was fully presented. The verdict of guilty was clearly supported by the State's evidence, and the sentence imposed was within statutory limits.
Defendant has been convicted by a jury in a fair trial free from prejudicial error.
No error.
Judges Campbell and Morris concur.