Page 655 |
Previous | 655 of 826 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
N.C.App.1 FALL SESSION 1972 631
State v. Hill
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE JOSEPH HILL
No. 7226SC584
(Filed 22 November 1972)
1. Criminal Law $102- jury argument of solicitor - reference to absence
of defense witnesses - no error
The trial court did not err in a prosecution for housebreaking and
larceny in allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state
that it was "mighty convenient" for the defendant that two witnesses
who allegedly would have helped him establish an alibi were not pres-ent.
2. Criminal Law 3 86- impeachment of defendant - inquiry about previ-ous
crimes proper
It was proper for the solicitor to ask defendant for the purpose
of impeachment if he had been convicted of stealing an automobile
where the question was based on information and asked in good faith.
APPEAL by defendant from Ervin, Judge, 17 January 1972
Conflict Session, MECKLENBURGSu perior Court.
By indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with
(1) housebreaking, (2) larceny, and (3) receiving. Defendant's
motion for dismissal of the receiving count was allowed but
the jury found defendant guilty of the other two charges. From
judgment sentencing him to the custody of the Commissioner
of Corrections for supervision and treatment as a youthful
offender for a term of not less than six years, defendant ap-pealed.
Attorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr.,
Assistant Attorney General, for the State.
Don Davis for defendant appellant.
BRITT, Judge.
[I] In the first assignment of error brought forward and
argued in his brief, defendant contends that the court erred in
allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state that
it was "mighty convenient" for the defendant that two possible
witnesses were not present. Defendant indicated at trial that
the two witnesses would have helped him establish an alibi
but one of them was out of the State serving in the Air Force
and the whereabouts of the other was unknown.
Object Description
| Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports [v.016, Fall Session Session 1972] |
| Creator | North Carolina. Court of Appeals. |
| Date | 1973 |
| Subjects | Law reports, digests, etc.--North Carolina; Court records--North Carolina |
| Place | North Carolina, United States |
| Description | Volume 16, Fall Session Session 1972. Cited as 16 N.C.App. The North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports are the official report of opinions of the North Carolina Court of Appeals. Includes cases and other information about the courts of North Carolina. |
| Publisher | Court of Appeals of North Carolina |
| Agency-Current | North Carolina Court of Appeals, Judicial Department |
| Rights | State Document see http://digital.ncdcr.gov/u?/p249901coll22,63754 |
| Collection | North Carolina State Documents Collection. State Library of North Carolina |
| Type | Text |
| Language | English |
| Format | Reports; Legal documents |
| Digital Characteristics-A | 35.8 MB; 826 p. |
| Serial Title | North Carolina Court of Appeals Reports |
| Digital Collection | North Carolina Digital State Documents Collection |
| Digital Format | application/pdf |
| Pres File Name-M | pubs_serial_courtofappealsreports_vol_016.pdf |
| Pres Local File Path-M | \Preservation_content\StatePubs\pubs_law\images_master\ |
| OCLC Number-Original | 1681248 |
Description
| Title | Page 655 |
| Full Text | N.C.App.1 FALL SESSION 1972 631 State v. Hill STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE JOSEPH HILL No. 7226SC584 (Filed 22 November 1972) 1. Criminal Law $102- jury argument of solicitor - reference to absence of defense witnesses - no error The trial court did not err in a prosecution for housebreaking and larceny in allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state that it was "mighty convenient" for the defendant that two witnesses who allegedly would have helped him establish an alibi were not pres-ent. 2. Criminal Law 3 86- impeachment of defendant - inquiry about previ-ous crimes proper It was proper for the solicitor to ask defendant for the purpose of impeachment if he had been convicted of stealing an automobile where the question was based on information and asked in good faith. APPEAL by defendant from Ervin, Judge, 17 January 1972 Conflict Session, MECKLENBURGSu perior Court. By indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) housebreaking, (2) larceny, and (3) receiving. Defendant's motion for dismissal of the receiving count was allowed but the jury found defendant guilty of the other two charges. From judgment sentencing him to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for supervision and treatment as a youthful offender for a term of not less than six years, defendant ap-pealed. Attorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State. Don Davis for defendant appellant. BRITT, Judge. [I] In the first assignment of error brought forward and argued in his brief, defendant contends that the court erred in allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state that it was "mighty convenient" for the defendant that two possible witnesses were not present. Defendant indicated at trial that the two witnesses would have helped him establish an alibi but one of them was out of the State serving in the Air Force and the whereabouts of the other was unknown. |
