State v. Norkett
| Decision Date | 22 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 251,251 |
| Citation | 153 S.E.2d 362,269 N.C. 679 |
| Parties | STATE, v. Billy Archie NORKETT. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Asst. Atty. Gen. James F. Bullock for the State.
Grier, Parker, Poe & Thompson and A. Marshall Basinger, Charlotte, for defendant appellant.
A review of the evidence is not necessary to decision on this appeal. Suffice to say, the State's case rests principally on the testimony of Mr. Hough; and defendant's testimony, in material respects, is in direct conflict therewith.
No motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit having been made at the conclusion of all the evidence, the question as to whether the evidence was sufficient to withstand such motion is not presented. However, based on assignments properly brought forward, defendant asserts the court committed prejudicial error for which he is entitled to a new trial.
Defendant, on cross-examination, admitted he had been tried and convicted in 1951 for assault with a deadly weapon, and in 1959 for storebreaking and larceny. When defendant's objections to this evidence were overruled, his counsel requested that the court instruct the jury 'on how to receive this evidence.' The record shows the court responded as follows: 'I will when the time comes to instruct them.' Immediately thereafter, the court charged the jury, but in doing so, failed to give any instruction bearing upon the limited purpose for which this evidence was competent.
'The general rule is that in a prosecution for a particular crime, the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense.' State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364, and cases and texts cited. 'Evidence of other offenses is inadmissible if its only relevancy is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit and offense of the nature of the one charged; but if it tends to prove any other relevant fact it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to have been guilty of an independent crime.' Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Second Edition, § 91. The testimony under consideration does not fall within any of the exceptions to the general rule set forth in State v. McClain, supra, and it does not tend to prove any fact relevant to whether defendant was guilty of the criminal offense for which he was being tried.
Defendant testified, but did not otherwise put his character in issue....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Noell
...1 Stansbury's N.C. Evidence, Brandis Rev. § 108 (1973). See State v. Goodson, 273 N.C. 128, 159 S.E.2d 310 (1968); State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362 (1967); State v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E.2d 606 (1943). No such request was made in this Defendant by his next assignment ......
-
State v. Watson
...Accord, State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 88, 178 S.E.2d 820 (1971); State v. Williams, 275 N.C. 77, 165 S.E.2d 481 (1969); State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362 (1967); State v. Choate, 228 N.C. 491, 46 S.E.2d 476 In State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E.2d 364 (1954), this Court, in an o......
-
State v. McLean
...prior crimes or acts of misconduct only for the purpose of determining the weight to be given defendant's testimony. State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362 (1967). Under the facts of this case these safeguards afforded defendant adequate opportunity to negate any likely prejudice fl......
-
Ingle v. Roy Stone Transfer Corp., 853
...For the purpose of impeachment, the witness himself is subject to cross-examination as to his convictions of crime. State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E.2d 362 (defendant admitted convictions of assault with a deadly weapon, store breaking, and larceny); State v. Sheffield, 251 N.C. 309,......