State v. Anderson
| Decision Date | 11 April 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 33,33 |
| Citation | 283 N.C. 218,195 S.E.2d 561 |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. John Henry ANDERSON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Attorney General Robert Morgan, Associate Attorney General Ralf Haskell, for the State.
Donald W. Grimes, Asst. Public Defender, for defendant-appellant.
Defendant states the one question he seeks to raise on the appeal as follows: 'Did the court err in its finding that the witness for the State Dora Campbell was a hostile witness and in permitting the Solicitor for the State to cross-examine the witness relative to the shooting of the deceased William Archie on the night of 17 June 1972?'
The foregoing question is based upon defendant's assignment of error and exception No. 4, which challenge the court's ruling which declared Dora Campbell 'a hostile witness' and allowed the solicitor 'to ask her Leading questions relative to . . . the killing of the deceased, William Archie, on the night of June 17, 1972' at her home.
Defendant's contentions are that the solicitor's 'leading questions' constituted cross-examination of Mrs. Campbell, a State's witness, for the purpose of discrediting her statement that she knew nothing about the actual killing of Archie; that the production of Exhibit 2 before the jury, and the solicitor's seriatim questions with reference to it, were highly prejudicial because the questions implied that Mrs. Campbell had previously answered them orally and in writing in a manner tending to support the charge of murder in the first degree.
Until changed by statute applicable to civil cases (G.S. § 1A--1, Rule 43(b) (1969)), it was established law in this State that a party could not impeach his own witness in either a civil or a criminal case. 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence § 40 (Brandis rev. 1973). See also McCormick, Evidence § 38 (Cleary Ed., 2d ed. 1972); 3A Wigmore, Evidence §§ 896--905 (Chadbourn rev. 1970). This rule, unchanged as to criminal cases, still precludes the solicitor from discrediting a State's witness by evidence that his general character is bad or that the witness had made prior statements inconsistent with or contradictory of his testimony. However, the trial judge has the discretion to permit the solicitor to cross-examine either a hostile or an unwilling witness for the purpose of refreshing his recollection and enabling him to testify correctly. State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 251, 79 S.E.2d 473, 477--478 (1954).
In this case it is quite clear that the solicitor, by his 'leading questions,' was not only undertaking to prove Mrs. Campbell testified falsely when she said she did not make the statements contained in Exhibit 2 and all she knew about the homicide was that she heard a shotgun blast. He was also attempting to induce her to give the jury the same account of events she had given the police immediately after Archie was killed. Failing in this, he wanted to indicate to the jury what she had told the investigating officers at that time.
We note that this case does not present a situation in which the solicitor was surprised by a witness whose testimony in court was contrary to what he had a right to expect. In such an event the court may permit a party to cross-examine his own witness ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Foreclosure of Deed of Trust Recorded in Book 911, at Page 512, Catawba County Registry, In re
... ... Myers, 270 N.C. 258, 154 S.E.2d 87 (1967), involved an involuntary taking of real property held by the entirety. The North Carolina State Highway Commission, implementing the State's power of eminent domain, condemned a right of way for highway purposes over a portion of the real ... ...
-
State v. Smith
...statements inconsistent with or contradictory to his testimony. State v. Pope, 287 N.C. 505, 215 S.E.2d 139 (1975); State v. Anderson, 283 N.C. 218, 195 S.E.2d 561 (1973); State v. Tilley, 239 N.C. 245, 79 S.E.2d 473 (1954). See 1 Stansbury's North Carolina Evidence § 40 (Brandis rev. 1973)......
-
State v. Williams, 4
...defendant was the one who actually pulled the trigger. While the State ordinarily may not impeach its own witness, State v. Anderson, 283 N.C. 218, 195 S.E.2d 561 (1973), this Court has approved efforts by the State directed to clearing up confusion as to a witness's statements, State v. Be......
-
State v. Richardson
...answer, is not evidence of any kind.’ ” State v. Smith, 289 N.C. 143, 157, 221 S.E.2d 247, 255 (1976) (quoting State v. Anderson, 283 N.C. 218, 226, 195 S.E.2d 561, 566 (1973)). As a result of the fact that Defendant denied any recollection of having had a discussion with Detective Redfern ......