State v. Bumper
Citation | 170 S.E.2d 457,275 N.C. 670 |
Decision Date | 19 November 1969 |
Docket Number | No. 31,31 |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Wayne Darnell BUMPER. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Trial Attorney Eugene A. Smith, Raleigh, for the State.
Clarence Ross, Graham, for defendant appellant.
The sole question for decision is whether the trial court erred in restricting defendant's cross-examination of State's witness, Monty Jones, on the question of his identification of defendant in the line-ups held on 16 August 1966.
Monty Jones stated on direct examination that he went into a room at the jail on two separate occasions and on each occasion he observed ten or fifteen colored men standing in line. On each occasion he went back and told Sheriff Stockard the number being held by the man who attacked him.
On cross-examination he testified:
Before Jones could answer, Mr. Cooper, the District Solicitor, asked the Judge to remove the jury. The jury was sent to the juryroom and Mr. Cooper, Mr. Dodge (defendant's attorney) and the Court engaged in the following colloquy:
The jury returned to the courtroom and no further mention was made of whether Monty Jones had testified on the first trial that he Believed that his attacker was No. 6 or that his attacker Was No. 6.
At the time defendant's attorney elicited the above quoted evidence, he was conducting his cross-examination by use of a transcript of the former trial. We note that, although defendant offered evidence, he did not favor the jury with the introduction of the transcript which would have shown with great finality and credence the statements made by the witness Jones at the first trial.
The right of cross-examination is a common law right and is guaranteed by the North Carolina Constitution, Article I, Sec. 11. The right to confront affirms the common law rule that in criminal trials by jury the witness must be present and subject to cross-examination under oath. State v. Perry, 210 N.C. 796, 188 S.E. 639; State v. Breece, 206 N.C. 92, 173 S.E. 9; State v. Hightower, 187 N.C. 300, 121 S.E. 616. The right to confront witnesses and cross-examine is also guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923; State v. Jackson, 270 N.C. 773, 155 S.E.2d 236.
The defendant is entitled to a full and fair cross-examination upon the subject of the witness' examination-in-chief, and this is an absolute right rather than a privilege. Resurrection Gold Min. Co. v. Fortune Gold Min. Co., 10 Cir., 129 F. 668; State v. Hightower, supra. However, when cross-examination is made for the purpose of impeaching the credibility of a witness, the method and duration of the cross-examination for these purposes rest largely in the discretion of the trial court, and the trial court may...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Abernathy
...of the trial judge, and he may limit cross-examination when it becomes merely repetitious. State v. Harris, supra; State v. Bumper, 275 N.C. 670, 170 S.E.2d 457 (1969); State v. Maynard, 247 N.C. 462, 101 S.E.2d 340 Defendants strongly rely on the cases of State v. Carey, supra, and State v......
-
State v. Reagan
...U.S. 543, 548, 88 S.Ct. 1788, [1791-92] 20 L.Ed.2d 797 (1968) [on appeal after remand, 5 N.C.App. 528, 169 S.E.2d 65, aff'd, 275 N.C. 670, 170 S.E.2d 457 (1969) ]; Dotson v. Warden, supra, [175 Conn. at] 618-19 .... 'The question whether consent to a search has in fact been freely and volun......
-
State v. Harris
...rest largely in the discretion of the trial judge, and he may limit cross-examination when it becomes merely repetitious. State v. Bumper, 275 N.C. 670, 170 S.E.2d 457; State v. Maynard, 247 N.C. 462, 101 S.E.2d Defendant strongly relies on the cases of State v. Carey, supra, and State v. R......
-
State v. Potter
...or withheld in his discretion and the exercise of that discretion will not, absent abuse, be disturbed on appeal. State v. Bumper, 275 N.C. 670, 170 S.E.2d 457 (1969); Welch v. Kearns, 261 N.C. 171, 134 S.E.2d 155 (1964)." (Emphasis No abuse of discretion is shown here. Next defendant compl......