State v. Wilson, 673
| Decision Date | 20 January 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 673,673 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of North Carolina v. Dewey Clifton WILSON. |
Atty. Gen. T. W. Bruton and Deputy Atty. Gen. Harry W. McGalliard for the State.
Robert A. Merritt, Greensboro, for defendant.
The evidence of the prosecuting witness, if true justified the conviction and sentence imposed upon defendant. He, however, denied his guilt of the crime charged and testified that his daughter had threatened to get rid of him because of his attempts to control her conduct. She had told him at least three times, he said, that she could 'make up something' which would 'put him away.' Defendant offered as a witness his next door neighbor, Mrs. Mary Cook, who Inter alia, testified in the absence of the jury as follows:
1. 'Q. Did Darlene at any time tell you anything about her father and mother making her do things or not?
'A. No, I don't believe. I can't remember any. I know several times she would say that she'd have a lot more fun if her daddy wasn't at home; he was too tight on her.
2. 'Q. At any time did you hear Darlene say anything concerning getting rid of her daddy?
'A. That's about all, I think. She said she could have more fun if he was away, that she wished he would get time.
3. 'Q. What's that?
'A. That she wished he would get time so she could be, she could be, she could go places and do more than she could with him at home. That's about all.
4. 'Q. Was she up at your house frequently?
The solicitor's objection to each of the above questions and answers was sustained. Defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to permit the jury to consider each question and answer. Whereupon, the court instructed the court reporter to 'read back to the jury' questions numbered 2, 3, and 4. She did so, and defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to permit Mrs. Cook to answer these questions in person in the presence of the jury.
The Attorney General concedes that, if the above evidence of Mrs. Cook was properly admissible and material to the defense, defendant is entitled to a new trial under the ruling in State v. Payton, 255 N.C. 420, 121 S.E.2d 608. In Payton, In awarding a new trial, this Court said: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cole v. Stevenson
...courts have recognized an exception where the failure to appeal was for reasons beyond the defendant's control. State v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 297, 152 S.E.2d 223 (1967); State v. White, 274 N.C. 220, 162 S.E.2d 473, 477 (1968). Petitioner argues that the change of law in Mullaney and Hankerson ......
-
State v. White, 86
...to prepare and to present their defense. * * *' Id. at 191--192, 105 S.E.2d at 620; accord, State v. Graves, supra. In State v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 297, 152 S.E.2d 223, an indigent, unable to perfect his appeal because of inability to pay counsel, filed a petition for a post-conviction hearing......
-
State v. Miller, 44
...State v. Hart, 239 N.C. 709, 80 S.E.2d 901 (1954). Accord, State v. Bailey, 278 N.C. 80, 178 S.E.2d 809 (1971); State v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 297, 152 S.E.2d 223 (1967). The Court of Appeals held, and properly so, that defendant should have been permitted to testify with reference to what other......
-
State v. Penley
...901 (1954). Both the State and the defendant have a right to cross-examine a witness to show his bias or interest. State v. Wilson, 269 N.C. 297, 152 S.E.2d 223 (1967); State v. Creech, 229 N.C. 662, 51 S.E.2d 348 (1949). And for the purpose of impeachment, prior inconsistent statements of ......