Posted on 11/17/2006 11:43:22 AM PST by kiriath_jearim
A Dunn man was found not guilty yesterday by a Harnett County Superior Court Jury in a controversial shooting.
Brad Hines, 33, was acquitted of a charge of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury.
Mr. Hines was charged with the Aug. 1, 2005 shooting of Robert Surles, 43, of Dunn at Mr. Surles' auto body shop. A service manager for Perry Brothers Tire Service, Mr. Hines testified he was attacked by Mr. Surles and an unknown, armed black male while attempting to collect a debt owed his employer.
Mr. Hines testified that Mr. Surles attacked him with a board and the other man drew a gun on him.
Mr. Hines said he pulled a handgun, for which he has a permit, and fired a single shot in self-defense, wounding Mr. Surles.
In an October 2005 hearing, District Court Judge Marcia Stewart found no probable cause for the charge against Mr. Hines.
But Senior Assistant District Attorney Peter Strickland decided to press on with the case and secured a grand jury indictment against Mr. Hines.
Defense attorney Parrish Hayes Daughtry told jurors Mr. Hines' account of what happened remained consistent.
"We told you what the evidence would show," Mrs. Daughtry said. "Brad Hines defended his life on Aug. 1, 2005 and his statements about what happened that night have all been consistent."
Mrs. Daughtry told jurors Mr. Hines was presumed innocent unless the prosecution could prove otherwise beyond a reasonable doubt.
"Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means you are fully satisfied and entirely convinced of my client's guilt," Mrs. Daughtry said. "Are you entirely convinced? Are you fully satisfied? If the answer is no, then we ask for a verdict of not guilty."
Defense attorney Gerald Hayes questioned Mr. Hines' possible motive in the shooting.
"What's the motive?" Mr. Hayes said. "If a man owes your company money, the best way to collect is to shoot the man?" Mr. Hayes said Mr. Hines showed restraint.
"What restraint it took not to pull a gun when you're being hit with a board," Mr. Hayes said. "He waited until a gun was pulled."
The bottom line, Mr. Hayes said, was credibility.
"The only way to convict Brad Hines is if you believe everything Robert Surles says and disbelieve what Brad Hines says," Mr. Hayes said. "Can you say Robert Surles' testimony satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt?"
Mr. Surles had testified Mr. Hines showed up unexpectedly at his business, rolled down his truck window and, without saying a word, shot him.
"This assault was justified as self-defense," Mr. Hayes said. "My client has cooperated in every respect. Can you say, based on the state's evidence, you believe every word Mr. Surles said is gospel truth?"
After the closing statements, Superior Court Judge Jim Ammons charged the jury and dismissed them to make a verdict.
The jury returned after about 10 minutes and a not guilty verdict was read by courtroom clerk Vivian Jackson.
Gun To Be Destroyed
After the verdict was read, Judge Ammons gave Mr. Hines some advice.
"Take that concealed weapon permit and turn it in to the Sheriff's Office - you don't need it," Judge Ammons said. "If the gun is returned to you, go sell it. You don't need it."
Mr. Strickland told Judge Ammons he wants the gun destroyed. Judge Ammons convened a hearing to decide the matter. "In a hearing before a judge, the weapon can either be returned to the defendant or I can order the firearm turned over to the sheriff and destroyed," Judge Ammons said.
Mr. Hayes defended Mr. Hines' right to keep his firearm.
"The court heard the evidence, Mr. Hines is in lawful possession and has a legal permit," Mr. Hayes said. "You're destroying a $600 to $800 gun which belongs to someone who has never committed a violent crime and you've heard testimony of his good character and reputation."
"We have heard the evidence and Mr. Hines took a firearm into a situation late at night where he knew it might be used," Mr. Strickland said. "The state is concerned a similar incident might happen again."
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Ammons ruled the firearm be turned over to Harnett County Sheriff Larry Rollins and destroyed.
"If the sheriff decides, he may sell, trade or exchange the gun with a firearms dealer as allowed by North Carolina statutes," Judge Ammons said. "If there is no appeal within 30 days, the order will be carried out."
In other court action, the murder trial of Alvin Delano McDougal has been continued to the week of Feb. 19. Mr. McDougal, 71, was scheduled to go on trial this week for the 18-year-old murder of a Lillington man.
Mr. McDougal has been sick this week at the Central State Prison hospital and his attorney, Chris Shella, said Mr. McDougal underwent a minor medical procedure and would not be available.
The burglary trial of William Ronald Douglas began today. Assistant District Attorney Kathleen Barry is prosecuting. Mr. Douglas is represented by attorney Penny Bell.
Mr. Douglas is one of three co-defendants in the February burglary of a Sanford home in which three children were left home alone.
The Supreme Court is unlikely to get much better than it is now, with the Rats in control of Congress.
Time to find out if "right of the people" and "shall not be infringed" mean what they say.
From the article:
After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Ammons ruled the firearm be turned over to Harnett County Sheriff Larry Rollins and destroyed.
Sounds like an order to me.
The Sheriff could, not the guy who owns the inanimate object. For use by the Sheriff's department of course. The owner is SOL, unless the gun is returned on appeal.
The Judge is a thief stealing under the color of law but then again what else is new.
Having read the story & the judges order it is my conclusion that the "state" in this case represented by the judge would rather see the bussiness man beaten & possibly killed rather than let a "peasant" get away with defending themselves from criminals.
How is this case any different from routine (albeit grossly unconstitutional) asset forfeiture in cases alleging something or other to do with drugs?
That was legal thievery. Nothing more.
You gotta go with the first string. You can't let the possibility of living through an incident and losing you favorite handgun be a factor. After all, you lived long enough to lose the gun, right?
Give it up, scrape together the money for something new, and start all over again.
bu...but..but then I'd have to find new pet names for all the new ones.....and I would keep remembering poor little Fifi and Pookie and Bitsy and Beaulah and Flopsy and Fluffy and Myrtle and and.....everybody!
This sounds too complicated.
No wonder I stay at home.
I have all my friends here.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.