State v. Conner, 363

• Decision Date: 09 May 1956
• Docket Number: No. 363,363
• Citation: 244 N.C. 109,92 S.E.2d 668
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE, v. Robert S. CONNER.

Page 668

92 S.E.2d 668

244 N.C. 109

STATE, v. Robert S. CONNER.

No. 363

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 9, 1956

Atty. Gen. William B. Rodman, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton, for the State.

Oren W. McClain, Philip E. Lucas, Winston-Salem, for defendant appellant.

WINBORNE, Justice.

Defendant presents for consideration five assignments of error based upon exceptions taken in the course of the re-trial in Superior Court. A careful consideration of cach of the assignments fails to show error for which the judgment from which defendant appeals should be disturbed.

The first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in allowing a police officer to testily, over objection by defendant, as to the discovery of a bullet on the west side of the store at the end of the meat counter, a month and a half or two months after the commission of the alleged crime, and in allowing, over objection, the introduction of the bullet into evidence as shown by Exceptions 1, 5, 6 and 8.

The evidence offered by the State tends to show that defendant confessed to the officers, and admitted on the trial, he shot Roberts twice in the store at the place of the robbery. And the evidence offered by the State tends to show that the bullet so found in the store had been shot out of the 38 pistol with which defendant admitted he shot Roberts. Whether the conditions in the store at the time the bullet was found were the same as at the time of the crime seems to be immaterial.

The second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in allowing police officers to testify, over objection of defendant, as to an unidentified abrasion on the wall near where the bullet, to which the exceptions on the first assignment of error relate, was so found, and in allowing, over objection of defendant, the introduction in evidence of photographs showing an arrow pointing to said abrasion as shown by Exceptions 2, 2a, 3, 4 and 7. The record discloses that the photographs were admitted in evidence for the purpose of illustrating the testimony of the witnesses in the case, under appropriate instruction to the jury. For this purpose the photographs were competent. Moreover, whether the abrasion was made by a bullet shot from a pistol, and whether it was made by a bullet shot from the .38 pistol defendant admits he used in shooting roberts in another part of the store, are immaterial matters and harmless.

The third assignment of error is that the trial court erred in allowing the Solicitor, on cross-examination, to question defendant as to his participation in specific crimes, as shown by Exceptions 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13. Counsel for defendant direct attention to stenographic report of the cross-examination by consent of the So-licitor.

Nevertheless it does not appear that the Solictor exceeded the bounds of legitimate practice in asking defendant as to his various infractions of the law, enumerated in the case on appeal. See State v. Broom, 222 N.C. 324, 22 S.E.2d 926; State v. Neal, 222 N.C. 546, 23 S.E.2d 911, 912, and numerous other cases.

In the Neal case, just cited, in opinion by Devin, J , it is stated: 'It has been uniformly held * * * that witnesses may be asked questions tending to show the commission of other offenses for the purpose of impeaching their credibility, provided the questions are based on information and asked in good faith * * * and that whether the cross-examination goes too far or is unfair is a matter for the determination of the trial judge, and rests largely in his sound discretion,' citing cases.

The...