State v. Aycoth
Decision Date | 03 May 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 496,496 |
Citation | 270 N.C. 270,154 S.E.2d 59 |
Parties | STATE, v. Wade AYCOTH and John Shadrick, Defendants. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Staff Atty. Ralph White, Jr., Raleigh, for the State.
R. Roy Hawfield, Monroe, for defendant appellant.
There was plenary evidence to withstand Aycoth's motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit and to support the verdict. The only serious question presented is whether Aycoth was materially prejudiced by the incident set forth below.
During the cross-examination of Deputy Sheriff Frank Fowler, a witness for the State, by counsel for Shadrick, the following occurred:
'A Yes, sir, in my opinion I know who owns it.
'Q Well, do you know?
'OBJECTION by the State.
'COURT: Well, the test is do you know who owns the automobile?
'OBJECTION by Mr. Huffman.
'Mr. HAWFIELD: Objection and move to strike.
'MOTION ALLOWED.
Fowler was the last witness for the State. At the conclusion of his testimony, the State rested and each defendant moved for judgment as in case of nonsuit. During the consideration of these motions, in the absence of the jury, counsel for Aycoth also moved for a mistrial on the ground the unresponsive statement of Fowler 'purposely or inadvertently materially prejudiced the rights' of Aycoth to such extent that its prejudicial effect could not be removed by an instruction such as that given by the court. His motion for a mistrial was denied and Aycoth excepted.
'The general rule is that in a prosecution for a particular crime, the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense.' State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364, and cases and texts cited; State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Second Edition, § 91.
The unresponsive statement of Fowler informed the jury that Aycoth had been indicted for murder. The court allowed the motion to strike and instructed the jury as shown by the quoted excerpt from the record.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hunt
...823; State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926. A more recent case reversing a conviction upon similar reasoning is State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E.2d 59. In Aycoth, during the cross-examination of an officer who was a State's witness, counsel for one of the defendants asked whethe......
-
State v. Robbins
...L.Ed.2d 340 (1972); State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 203 S.E.2d 38 (1974). Substantial factual differences distinguish State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E.2d 59 (1967), relied on by defendant. In our view, the minds of the jurors in this case would not have found the State's case significa......
-
State v. Wilson, 180A83
...cumulative effect of the incompetent evidence prejudiced the minds of the jurors. We find the following language in State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E.2d 59 (1967) instructive on this 'In appraising the effect of incompetent evidence once admitted and afterwards withdrawn, the Court wil......
-
State v. Siler
...effect cannot be cured by an instruction, we have held that a mistrial should have been granted. See, e. g., State v. Aycoth, 270 N.C. 270, 154 S.E.2d 59 (1967). We find the objectionable evidence in this case curable by instruction. The jurors were merely informed that the defendant had be......