State v. Godwin, 499
| Citation | 147 S.E.2d 890,267 N.C. 216 |
| Decision Date | 04 May 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 499,499 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Myrle Coleman GODWIN. |
Carl C. Churchill, Jr., Raleigh, for defendant.
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Charles D. Barham, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Wilson B. Partin, Jr., Staff Atty., Raleigh, for the State.
Over a period of three years Mrs. Wall received disconcerting and frequent telephone calls from the defendant and had taken action to stop them, or decrease their number, without result. To show the attitude of the defendant towards her, the court permitted Mrs. Wall to testify that the defendant had attempted to block her car in the parking lot of the supermarket, that she had frequently followed her to such places as the hospital, school, etc. and would cut her car in front of Mrs. Wall's The defendant assigns this evidence as error but it was competent for the purpose of showing the intent of the defendant and her attitude toward the prosecuting witness. State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364. Her conduct in blocking Mrs. Wall's car and cutting in front of it showed the defendant's intent to harass, annoy and molest her and is competent as interpreting the reasons for her frequent telephone calls which were alleged to be for the same purpose.
The defendant further complains that the Court permitted the State to introduce tape recordings allegedly containing telephone conversations by the defendant with Mrs. Wall but the State has laid the requisite foundation for their admissibility. Mrs. Wall identified them as being the voice of the defendant, and stated that they were a fair and accurate representation of the conversations she had with the defendant. The exceptions are overruled. State v. Walker, 251 N.C. 465, 112 S.E.2d 61; Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 L.Ed. 944. The defendant claims that these recordings are incompetent because they violate the North Carolina Wiretapping Statute G.S. § 14--155 and also G.S. § 14--372 and G.S. § 15--27. However, these statutes were not enacted to prevent introduction of evidence obtained in a case similar to this and are not relevant here.
Another exception is that the court did not define the words 'annoy, molest and harass,' and also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Doss
...was correct, that from his independent recollection nothing was left out of the statement and nothing was added. In State v. Godwin, 267 N.C. 216, 147 S.E.2d 890 (1966), citing State v. Walker, 251 N.C. 465, 112 S.E.2d 61 (1960) and Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 48 S.Ct. 564, 72 ......
-
State v. Gattis
...State v. Ortega, 79 N.M. 707, 448 P.2d 813 (Ct.App.1968). The intent to harass may be shown by other harassing acts. State v. Godwin, 267 N.C. 216, 147 S.E.2d 890 (1966); NMSA 1978, Evid.R. 404(b) (Repl.Pamp.1983). The language used in calls may be considered in determining defendant's inte......
-
State v. Patterson
...Caldwell v. State, 26 Md.App. 94, 337 A.2d 476 (1975); People v. Green, 63 Misc.2d 435, 312 N.Y.S.2d 290 (1970); State v. Godwin, 267 N.C. 216, 147 S.E.2d 890 (1966); State v. Murphy, 176 Ohio St. ,385, 199 N.E.2d 884 (1964); State v. Hulsey, 15 Ohio App.2d 153, 239 N.E.2d 567 (1968); State......
-
State v. Jennings
...words of common usage in the absence of a request for special instructions. State v. Hall, 267 N.C. 90, 147 S.E.2d 548; State v. Godwin, 267 N.C. 216, 147 S.E.2d 890; State v. Jones, 227 N.C. 402, 42 S.E.2d 465. Further, this Court has approved charges on self-defense which used these words......