Defendant presents five questions for our determination on his appeal.
The evidence, when considered in the light most favorable to the State, giving the State the benefit of every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom, was sufficient to submit the case to the jury and to
Defendant contends that the trial court committed error in its charge by failing to instruct the jury in accordance with his request. The record shows that after the court had instructed the jury, it asked: "Now anything further for the defendant? MR. SANDS: No, sir, Your Honor." The jury was excused to consider the case. The record shows the following:
Requests for special instructions must be in writing and must be submitted before the beginning of the charge by the court. G.S. 15A-1231(a); State v. Jackson, 30 N.C. App. 187, 226 S.E.2d 543 (1976). The purpose of an instruction is to clarify the issues for the jury and to apply the law to the facts of the case. State v. Cousin, 292 N.C. 461, 233 S.E.2d 554 (1977); State v. Britt, 285 N.C. 256, 204 S.E.2d 817 (1974). The law requires the trial judge to clarify and explain the law arising on the evidence. State v. Harrill, 289 N.C. 186, 221 S.E.2d 325 (1976), modified, 428 U.S. 904, 96 S.Ct. 3212, 49 L.Ed.2d 1211 (1976). We hold that the court charged in substance on the matters as requested by defendant; and as a result thereof, we find no error.
Defendant contends that the court erred in failing to properly place the burden of proof on the State with regard to the element of murder in the second degree. We glean from defendant's brief that he complains of the following portion of the court's instructions:
We note that the court charged in part as follows following the above complained of charge:
When the entire charge is considered, we do not conclude that the phrase, "and if nothing else appears the defendant would be guilty of second degree murder" (emphasis added), creates an impermissible presumption of malice against defendant. The logical inferences from the fact of an intentional infliction of a wound which proximately resulted in death remains and may be weighed against the evidence of self-defense. The jury was required by the charge to consider all of the evidence presented by the State and defendant. We hold that the entire charge, when considered as a whole, is without error. See State v. Slade, 291 N.C. 275, 229 S.E.2d 921 (1976).
Defendant assigns as error the court's failing to permit the defendant to introduce evidence as to the nature of the area and customs therein where the alleged crime occurred. We do not find error.
The record reveals several exceptions based on objections sustained by the trial court to questions propounded by defense counsel. This ordinarily means that the answers the witnesses would have given should be made a part of the record. This applies not only to direct examination but also to cross-examination. State v. Little, 286 N.C. 185, 209 S.E.2d 749 (1974), reh. denied, 286 N.C. 548 (1975); State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E.2d 20 (1972); 1 Stansbury's N.C. Evidence (Brandis Rev. 1973), § 26. Here, the answers were not made a part of the record; therefore, these exceptions are not before us.
The record shows the following with reference to Exception No. 10:
Four pages of questions and answers follow. The jury returned to open court. The questions propounded in the absence of the jury were not repeated after the jury returned. The court did state, "I will sustain an objection to that also. I don't know of any theory of law that lets in the reputation of some area." Defendant did not attempt to explain any personal knowledge or fears he had concerning the nature of the area. This offered and excluded testimony is irrelevant. Defendant did not carry a knife because the area was dangerous. Defendant testified: "As to why I stabbed him, well I didn't have a reason, I stabbed because I thought he was going to shoot me, he had drawed a gun on me before so I thought that he was going back after me." To us, the evidence offered did not in any way relate to defendant's state of mind in relation to his plea of self-defense. Cf. State v. Miller, 282 N.C. 633, 194 S.E.2d 353 (1973).
We have considered all other assignments of error as contended by defendant and find no error in any of them.
In the trial of defendant, we find no prejudicial error.
HEDRICK and ARNOLD, JJ., concur.