State v. Gurley
| Citation | 283 N.C. 541,196 S.E.2d 725 |
| Decision Date | 01 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 8,8 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of North Carolina |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Johnnie Lee GURLEY. |
Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan and Asst. Atty. Gen. Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.
J. Reid Potter, Charlotte, for defendant.
The rape of which the defendant was convicted having been committed prior to our decision in State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E.2d 19, the imposition of the sentence to imprisonment for life therefor was not error insofar as the nature of the punishment imposed is concerned.
At the trial the defendant was represented by court-appointed counsel who gave notice of appeal in due time. Before the appeal was perfected, the trial counsel was relieved by order of the court, pursuant to the motion of the defendant, and the defendant was represented in this Court by counsel employed by his family. Due to the change in counsel, we extended the time for the docketing of the appeal and the filing of the defendant's brief.
The defendant's Assignments of Error 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 are directed to the admission in evidence of testimony to which no objection was made. It is elementary that, with the exception of evidence precluded by statute in furtherance of public policy, which exception is not applicable to these assignments of error, the failure to object to the introduction of the evidence is a waiver of the right to do so, and its admission, even if incompetent, is not a proper basis for appeal. State v. McKethan, 269 N.C. 81, 152 S.E.2d 341; State v. Howell, 239 N.C. 78, 79 S.E.2d 235; Lambros v. Zrakas, 234 N.C. 287, 66 S.E.2d 895; State v. Fuqua, 234 N.C. 168, 66 S.E.2d 667; State v. Hunt, 223 N.C. 173, 25 S.E.2d 598; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 27; Wigmore on Evidence, 3rd Ed., § 18. As said by Justice Parker, later Chief Justice, in State v. Howell, supra, 'It is too late after the trial to make exceptions to the evidence.' Due to the serious nature of the charges against the defendant and the extent of the sentences imposed, we have, nevertheless, carefully reviewed the entire record, including the admission of the evidence to which these assignments of error relate, and find therein no basis for the granting of a new trial.
Assignment of Error No. 1 is to the allowance of leading questions, which 'is a matter entirely within the discretion of the trial judge, and his ruling will not be reviewed on appeal, at least in the absence of a showing of abuse of discretion.' State v. Cranfield, 238 N.C. 110, 76 S.E.2d 353; Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, 2d Ed., § 31. The record shows no such abuse of discretion even if we were to assume that objections had been duly interposed and overruled. The record does not show that one of the alleged leading questions was ever answered. For this further reason, no error is shown by the exception now taken to it. State v. Fountain, 282 N.C. 58, 66, 191 S.E.2d 674. Two others merely elicited repetition of the same witness' earlier testimony. One of these was a mere introductory reference, on the morning of the second day of the trial, to the testimony of the same witness on the preceding day so as to furnish a starting point for the resumption of the examination. The remaining question to which this assignment of error relates was as to whether there were any stains upon the strip of towel used as a blindfold, the exhibit, itself, being before the jury and the presence of stains thereon obvious. The prosecuting witness had previously testified that the blows on her head with the pistol drew blood.
The defendant's Assignment of Error No. 2 is directed to the admission, without objection, of three alleged conclusions of witnesses. The first was the statement by the prosecuting witness that she found out her assailant had moved her car around to the back of the apartment. In the first place, this is not, on its face, a conclusion. In any event, the same witness subsequently testified that, when she left the defendant's apartment, he told her that he had parked her car 'around behind the apartment' and she went there, found it and drove away in it. Thus, had there been error in admitting the alleged conclusion, it was cured by this subsequent testimony. The second of the alleged conclusions was the testimony of the deputy sheriff that the State's Exhibit No. 1 was a blank check belonging to the prosecuting witness and her husband with a note written on the back of it. The prosecuting witness, herself, had previously identified this exhibit as a note she had written to her husband, pursuant to the dictation of her assailant, upon a check torn from the checkbook of the witness and her husband. The third of the alleged conclusions was the statement by the deputy sheriff that the stains on the blindfold appeared to be blood stains. The prosecuting witness had previously testified that the blows upon her head by the pistol in the hand of her assailant caused bleeding and had identified the exhibit as the blindfold placed over her eyes by the assailant. This testimony of the deputy sheriff would not have been ground for a new trial even had an objection been interposed in due time and overruled.
The defendant's Assignment of Error No. 5 is to testimony elicited on cross-examination of a highway patrolman called as a witness for the defendant and of the deputy sheriff recalled as his witness by the defendant. No objection was interposed to any part of the examinations to which this assignment relates. The defendant now contends the questions asked were not within the proper scope of cross-examination. Had objection been interposed, there would have been no error in overruling such objection. There is no merit in this assignment of error.
Assignment of Error No. 6 is to the admission of cross-examination of the defendant by the solicitor, without objection, concerning the contents of the pornographic magazines taken from his apartment pursuant to the search warrant. The defendant contends that this cross-examination relates to 'evidence previously excluded.' It appears from the record that this group of magazines was excluded, upon the defendant's objection, when offered in evidence by the State. It does not follow that, for this reason, the defendant, having subsequently testified as a witness in his own behalf, could not be cross-examined about his possession of Familiarity with and interest in this type of literature for the purpose of impeachment.
The defendant's Assignment of Error No. 7 is directed to the admission in evidence, without objection, of certain cross-examination of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Jarrette
...Watkins, 283 N.C. 504, 196 S.E.2d 750; State v. Waddell, supra; State v. Carroll, 282 N.C. 326, 193 S.E.2d 85. See also: State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541, 196 S.E.2d 725; State v. Washington, 283 N.C. 175, 195 S.E.2d 534; State v. Talbert, 282 N.C. 718, 194 S.E.2d Prior to 1949, the imposition......
-
State v. Wallace
...cert. denied, 440 U.S. 984, 99 S.Ct. 1797, 60 L.Ed.2d 246 (1979); State v. Jones, 291 N.C. 681, 231 S.E.2d 252 (1977); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541, 196 S.E.2d 725 (1973); State v. Locklear, 41 N.C.App. 292, 254 S.E.2d 653, rev. denied, 298 N.C. 571, 261 S.E.2d 129 (1979); State v. Ledford......
-
State v. Jean, 112A83
...prior acts of misconduct, in this case circumstances of defendant's undesirable discharge from military service); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541, 196 S.E.2d 725 (1973) (Lake, J., holding defendant properly cross-examined about his possession of, familiarity with, and interest in pornographic......
-
State v. Green
...See State v. Curry, 288 N.C. 660, 220 S.E.2d 545 (1975); State v. McAllister, 287 N.C. 178, 214 S.E.2d 75 (1975); State v. Gurley, 283 N.C. 541, 196 S.E.2d 725 (1973); State v. Gainey,280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E.2d 874 (1972); State v. Colson, 194 N.C. 206, 139 S.E. 230 (1927). Such questions mus......