State v. Jones

• Decision Date: 24 May 1972
• Docket Number: No. 7226SC82,7226SC82
• Citation: 14 N.C.App. 558,188 S.E.2d 676
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Clifton Ray JONES.

Page 676

188 S.E.2d 676

14 N.C.App. 558

STATE of North Carolina v. Clifton Ray JONES.

No. 7226SC82.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

May 24, 1972.

Atty. Gen. Robert Morgan by Associate Atty. Gen. Walter E. Ricks, III, for the State.

Thomas E. Cummings, Charlotte, for defendant appellant.

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The defendant first contends that it was error for the trial court to allow the witness, Robert M. Suggs, to testify. Defendant argues that the testimony amounted to the confession of another party which was induced by expectation of leniency and that the testimony was therefore inadmissible. This argument is without merit.

A confession is defined as an acknowledgment by the Accused in a criminal action of his guilt of the Crime charged. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 816 (emphasis added). The testimony of Suggs does not fall within this definition. He is not the accused in this action nor is he charged with any crime in this action. He is merely a witness and the fact that his testimony implicates him does not make it a confession within the above-stated rule.

It is well settled that an accomplice is a competent witness. The fact that an accomplice hopes for or expects mitigation of his own punishment does not disqualify him from testifying. 23 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 805. Any objection to the manner in which this testimony was procured was available only to the witness and not to the defendant. State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E.2d 594 (1943), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 749, 64 S.Ct. 52, 88 L.Ed. 445. The trial court properly instructed the jury in considering the testimony of accomplice Suggs. There was no error in allowing the witness Suggs to testify.

The defendant next assigns as error the admission of testimony of a policy officer that threats had been made against the witness Suggs. The testimony was brought out on cross examination in response to questions about Suggs being allowed to see his girl friend at the Law Enforcement Center. The officer testified that this had been done and explained further that it was necessary because Suggs had been placed in isolation for his own protection after threats had been made against him. This assignment of error is without merit.

The defendant inquired repeatedly as to privileges granted Suggs while he was in jail. The police officer was merely explaining the reasons for any such privileges. '. . . As a general rule a witness should be permitted to explain facts in evidence from which a wrong inference or conclusion is likely to be drawn without an explanation, . . .' 98 C.J.S. Witnesses § 318 b, p. 17. See also 58 Am.Jur., Witnesses, § 670. There was no error in allowing the witness to explain his answer in this case.

The defendant's final assignment of error is to questions by the Solicitor as to any other indictments against the defendant.

The defendant relies on the case of State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E.2d 174 (1971), in which the Supreme Court of North Carolina overruled a long line of precedent and held that a defendant could no longer be impeached by questions as to indictments he might be under other than the one on which he was being...