State v. Orrell
| Decision Date | 30 June 1876 |
| Citation | 75 N.C. 317 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBERT ORRELL. |
A witness has the right, upon his re-direct examination, to give evidence explanatory of his testimony brought out upon his cross-examination, although such evidence might not have been strictly proper in the first instance.
The Court below committed no error in refusing permission to the defendant to ask an immaterial question, and the answer to which could not have been used for any proper or useful purpose.
Where testimony (of what has been said to the defendant) has been permitted to go to the jury without any objection on his, the defendant's part, and it is not now seen, how an objection could have enured to his benefit--it being competent to give evidence as to what was said to defendant in relation to the charge against him,--still, if he so desired, he was entitled to have the benefit of any reply he may, at the time, have made as such charges, &c.
INDICTMENT, for Larceny, tried before CLOUD, J., at Spring Term, 1876, of DAVIE Superior Court.
On the trial below, the State introduced one Gus. Hairston, the prosecutor, who upon cross-examination was asked if he had not taken out a warrant before a Justice of the Peace, and had not had two jury trials as to the ownership of the pig, which was alleged to have been stolen. He replied in the affirmative. He was then asked if he did not afterwards come to Court and employ counsel to assist the Solicitor in the prosecution. To this he replied that he had not, and stated that the defendant would not allow his witnesses to testify before the Magistrate, and that he had put the matter into Court to get justice. Under objection by the defendant, the witness stated on cross-examination that at the trial before the Magistrate the defendant had cursed him and his witnesses and brandished weapons around them. That after the indictment had been found, he had threatened himself and his witnesses, in case they came to Court, to testify against him. The defendant excepted.
There was evidence tending to show that shortly after the pig was missing, the defendant advised the prosecutor to sue out a search warrant against one Markland; and it being in evidence that one of the witnesses lived near Markland, the witness was asked by the defendant “who employed counsel to assist the Solicitor?” The question was ruled out by the Court, and the defendant excepted.
There was a verdict and judgment against the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Minton
...Co., 199 N.C. 413, 154 S.E. 674; Leonard v. Davis, 187 N.C. 471, 122 S.E. 16; State v. Bethea, 186 N.C. 22, 118 S.E. 800; State v. Orrell, 75 N.C. 317; 70 C.J., Witnesses, section 1134, and cases cited; Wigmore on Evidence (2d Ed.), section 1117. This is true even though evidence otherwise ......
-
State v. Cates, 14
...may not be competent, but the cross-examination may make it so." See State v. Sawyer, 224 N.C. 61, 29 S.E.2d 34 (1944); State v. Orrell, 75 N.C. 317 (1876). In the present case, Crews' testimony on redirect as to prior acts of misconduct by defendant was clearly relevant in that it showed t......
-
State v. Love
...instance. Johnson v. Massengill, 280 N.C. 376, 186 S.E.2d 168 (1972); State v. Warren, 227 N.C. 380, 42 S.E.2d 350 (1947); State v. Orrell, 75 N.C. 317 (1876). As for defendant's argument that the same testimony is inadmissible hearsay, this is also without merit. The testimony was not intr......
-
State v. Sawyer
... ... Conceding that the ... evidence may have been incompetent on direct examination, it ... was brought out on re-direct examination in explanation of ... [29 S.E.2d 38.] ... testimony elicited under cross-examination by defendants. For ... this purpose it was competent. State v. Orrell, 75 ... N.C. 317, Jordan v. Motor Lines, 182 N.C. 559, 109 ... S.E. 566, and cases cited ... 3. The ... court having instructed the jury that, as to each defendant, ... one of two verdicts, guilty as charged, or of not guilty, ... might be returned, defendants contend that ... ...