State v. Hicks
Supreme Court of North Carolina
1Opinion of the Court
Pee CuRiam.
At his trial the defendant interposed no defense, but now claims his mental disability is shown by his escape — that if he were normal mentally he would have known better. The plea is novel and interesting, and has many implications and possibilities.
Unfortunately for the defendant, however, that is not the law. “Every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his crimes until the contrary is proven.” S. v. Cureton, 218 N.C. 491, 11 S.E. 2d 469. And the burden is on the defendant to prove his irresponsibility. S. v. Creech, 229…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- State v. CreechSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1949
- State v. . CuretonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1940
- State v. ThomasSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1952
- State v. McIntyreSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1953
- Texas Co. v. StoneSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1950
3Cited by4 opinions
- State v. BarfieldSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1979
- State v. BarrancoCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1985
- State v. FullerCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1975
- State v. ThurgoodCourt of Appeals of North Carolina · 1971