State v. Godwin
| Decision Date | 03 January 1945 |
| Docket Number | 657 |
| Citation | 32 S.E.2d 609,224 N.C. 846 |
| Parties | STATE v. GODWIN et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
The defendants were indicted in three bills of indictment charging conspiracy, assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill and murder J. R. Bullard, and assault with deadly weapon with intent to kill and murder Mrs. J. R Bullard.
All the cases based upon these bills of indictment were consolidated, without objection, for trial.
Verdict 'Guilty as to all defendants of conspiracy; Guilty of assault with deadly weapon on J. R. Bullard as to all defendants, except Ruby Murphy; Guilty as to assault with a deadly weapon on Mrs. J. R. Bullard as to all defendants, except Ruby Murphy.'
From a judgment sentencing the appealing defendants to various terms of imprisonment, predicated upon the verdict, said defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
James R. Nance, of Fayetteville, for defendants.
The defendants excepted to, and assigned as error, the admission of certain evidence, purely collateral in character and which they contend was prejudicial to them. George Elliott, a witness for the State, who admitted he had had trouble with the defendant, Miss Ada Godwin, was permitted to testify that about a month before the commission of the alleged crime, for which the defendants were on trial, that he had started to Miss Ada Godwin's house to see her relative to a fire and that he met her at Dale's Filling Station and said to her: ' He further testified her reply was ' The witness was also permitted to testify to the use of vile and profane language by Ada Godwin in discussing a debt owed by one of her tenants for a seed loan, which tenant was planning to move on Elliott's land, without paying the loan.
This evidence tended to discredit and impeach this defendant about a collateral matter and to create an unfavorable impression of the defendant in the minds of the jurors which was manifestly prejudicial. State v. Lee, 211 N.C. 326 190 S.E. 234. It is true, as the State contends, she went upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Aldridge, 77
...or even contradict it with other evidence, upon peril of losing the benefit of his exception. ' In this connection, see State v. Godwin, 224 N.C. 846, 32 S.E.2d 609; State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291; Jones v. Bailey, 246 N.C. 599, 99 S.E.2d In Shelton v. Southern R. R., supra, the ......
- Chason v. Marley
-
Stone v. Paradise Park Homes, Inc., 774SC705
...dilemmas, see Jones v. Bailey, 246 N.C. 599, 99 S.E.2d 768 (1957); State v. Tew, 234 N.C. 612, 68 S.E.2d 291 (1951); State v. Godwin, 224 N.C. 846, 32 S.E.2d 609 (1945); Shelton v. R.R., 193 N.C. 670, 139 S.E. 232 Secondly, in the cases cited by plaintiffs to support their waiver argument, ......
-
Ingram v. Henderson Cnty. Hosp. Corp.
...probative value, or even contradict it with other evidence upon peril of losing the benefit of his exception . State v. Godwin , 224 N.C. 846, 847–48, 32 S.E.2d 609, 610 (1945) (emphasis added) (quotation marks omitted).Plaintiff’s questioning regarding the three studies pointed out their l......