State v. Wray, 1.
| Decision Date | 28 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 1.,1. |
| Citation | 7 S.E.2d 468,217 N.C. 167 |
| Parties | STATE. v. WRAY et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Appeal from Superior Court, Rockingham County; Zeb V. Nettles, Judge.
Caleb Wray was convicted of an assault with deadly weapon, and Caleb Wray, William Martin and Claud Cook were convicted of resisting and obstructing public officers in discharging their duties as policemen, and they appeal.
No error.
Glidewell & Glidewell, of Reidsville, for defendants-appellants.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and George B. Patton, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The three defendants were convicted of resisting and obstructing public officers in discharging their duties as policemen of Mayodan, C.S. § 4378, and the defendant Wray was also convicted of an assault with deadly weapon. C.S. § 4215.
The State's evidence tended to show that two policemen of Mayodan entered a cafe operated by the wife of the defendant Wray; that Wray cursed and struck one of the policemen whereupon the other policeman, the chief, told Wray to consider himself under arrest, and placed his hands upon Wray; that the other two defendants, Martin and Cook, caught hold of the officers and of Wray and stated that the officers should not take Wray to jail, that a struggle with the officers ensued wherein all three defendants were engaged; that the defendant Wray was taken to the town jail and there threw a brass lock weighing a half pound or more at one of the officers.
The defendants' evidence tended to show that officers entered the cafe of the wife of defendant Wray, and without cause grabbed hold of defendant Wray and that Wray struggled to release himself, and that the other two defendants, Martin and Cook, did not enter the struggle or in any way obstruct the officers; that the officers did not have a warrant; and further, that the defendant Wray did not throw the lock at cither of the officers at the jail.
The defendants assign as error the following: ' " This assignment is untenable.
While it may be that the assignment cannot be denied for the reason that the answer the witness would have made to the interrogatory does not appear in the record, Newbern v. Hinton, 190 N.C. 108, 129 S.E. 181, since the interrogatory was made upon cross examination, Etheridge v. R. R., 209 N.C. 326, 183 S.E. 539, still when it was sought to go beyond the scope of the examination in chief to determine the interest or bias of the witness and to impeach his credibility the method and duration of the cross examination for these purposes rested largely in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604; State v. Coleman, 215 N.C. 716, 2 S.E.2d 865. It does not appear that there has been any prejudicial abuse of discretion by the trial court, in view of the fact that the witness had been required to answer the interrogatory just preceding the one to which the objection was lodged. The two interrogatories were practically the same in purpose, namely, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hart
...2. Despite dicta, State v. Stone, 226 N.C. 97, 36 S.E.2d 704, State v. Coleman, 215 N.C. 716, 2 S.E.2d 865, and decision, State v. Wray, 217 N.C. 167, 7 S.E.2d 468, to that effect, evidence obtainable by cross-examination showing bias or interest of an opposing witness is not to be revealed......
-
State v. Mayhand
...is disclosed. State v. Black, 283 N.C. 344, 196 S.E.2d 225 (1973); State v. Stone, 226 N.C. 97, 36 S.E.2d 704 (1946); State v. Wray, 217 N.C. 167, 7 S.E.2d 468 (1940). In the instant case, the trial judge excused the jury and conducted a voir dire hearing to determine whether the district a......
-
State v. Hollman
...against the authority of the State. The decisions of neighboring North Carolina reflect the same situation as ours. In State v. Wray, 217 N.C. 167, 7 S.E.2d 468, the defendant was convicted of resisting and obstructing officers and of assault with a deadly weapon, under separate criminal st......
-
State v. Poolos
...v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 209 N.C. 326, 183 S.E. 539; State v. Huskins, 209 N.C. 727, 184 S.E. 480, and pointed out in State v. Wray, 217 N.C. 167, 7 S.E.2d 468, that the general rule that where a question is propounded to a witness and an objection thereto is sustained, in order for a......