State v. Mercer
North Carolina Supreme Court
165 S.E.2d 328 (1969)
- Written by Kaitlin Pomeroy-Murphy, JD
Facts
In 1965, Ervin Mercer (defendant) married Myrtle Mercer. Ervin was in the United States Army and stationed in many difference places. After their marriage, Myrtle lived in North Carolina with a woman named Ida Dunn and her five-year-old son. Conflict in the marriage developed, and in July 1967 Myrtle wrote to Ervin to tell him that she no longer wanted to be confined by their marriage. In September 1967, Ervin took a short leave to visit Myrtle and attempt to mend their relationship. When Ervin arrived at Myrtle’s home, she would not speak with him or let him stay. Ervin attempted to speak with Myrtle at her home multiple times, but she would not see him. One night, after calling Myrtle’s home phone and finding it busy, he had his cousin drive him to the house. No one answered when he knocked. He shot the door two times and pushed it open. Someone called out to him to stop. Ervin fired the gun multiple times, killing Myrtle, Dunn, and her son. Ervin’s testimony at trial indicated that he was unconscious during the shooting. Ervin was charged with first-degree murder for the three deaths. During trial, the court instructed the jury that they must only consider evidence of Ervin’s unconsciousness when evaluating the elements of premeditation and deliberation. The jury convicted Ervin of second-degree murder in each case. Ervin appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bobbitt, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.