{
  "id": 8551901,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CORINA BATES RHODES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rhodes",
  "decision_date": "1970-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 7017SC539",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 557",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N.C. 873",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0873-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 606",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "223 N.C. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601860
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/223/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 S.E. 2d 719",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "238 N.C. 607",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614616
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/238/0607-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 N.C. 558",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "108 S.E. 2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "250 N.C. 252",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622053
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/250/0252-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 477",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551919
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0477-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 S.E. 2d 866",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 N.C. 371",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615339
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/249/0371-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 368,
    "char_count": 6381,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36693702991950494
    },
    "sha256": "00ee971e1497e3e7a338e172f1b4ef0b304a3617d796de4423eda3fde64d00e4",
    "simhash": "1:32e2dc7b0759ea82",
    "word_count": 1055
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:51:53.441044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Britt concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CORINA BATES RHODES"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nBy assignments of error one through seven, and nine, the defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error in its several rulings with regard to the State\u2019s introduction into evidence and use of the \u201cDrivers License Record Check for Enforcement Agencies\u201d of the defendant Corina Bates Rhodes. These assignments of error are without merit. The record reveals that the State\u2019s exhibit identified as the \u201cDrivers License Record Check for Enforcement Agencies\u201d was admitted into evidence over the defendant\u2019s objection after Patrolman Foster had testified that the defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license had been suspended by the Department of Motor Vehicles on 14 October 1968 for an accumulation of twelve points. The records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, properly authenticated, are competent for the purpose of establishing the status of a person\u2019s operator\u2019s license and driving privilege. State v. Mercer, 249 N.C. 371, 106 S.E. 2d 866 (1959); State v. Teasley, 9 N.C. App. 477, 176 S.E. 2d 838; G.S. 8-35; G.S. 20-42 (b). The defendant does not contend that the record introduced into evidence was not properly authenticated.\nIn State v. Corl, 250 N.C. 252, 108 S.E. 2d 608 (1959), our Supreme Court said:\n\u201cIn our opinion the defendant was entitled to have the contents of the official record of the status of his driver\u2019s license limited, if he had so requested, to the formal parts thereof, including the certification and seal, plus the fact that under official action of the Department of Motor Vehicles the defendant\u2019s license was in a state of revocation or suspension on the date he is charged with committing the offenses for which he was being tried.\n\u201cOrdinarily, where evidence admissible for some purposes, but not for all, is admitted generally, its admission will not be held for error unless the appellant requested at the time of its admission that its purpose be restricted. Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 558, General Statutes, Volume 4A, page 175, et seq; Brewer v. Brewer, 238 N.C. 607, 78 S.E. 2d 719; S. v. McKinnon, 223 N.C. 160, 25 S.E. 2d 606; S. v. Hendricks, 207 N.C. 873, 178 S.E. 557.\n\u201cIn the instant case, the defendant made no request that the contents of the certified record of the status of his driver\u2019s license be limited to the portion or portions thereof relating to the status of his driver\u2019s license on the date he was charged with committing the offenses for which he was being- tried. Hence, this assignment of error is overruled.\u201d See also State v. Teasley, supra.\nIn the instant case, when the State introduced the \u201cDrivers License Record Check for Enforcement Agencies,\u201d the defendant lodged only a general objection and did not request that the certified record be limited in any way, nor did the defendant move to strike any particular portion of the record.\nWhen the defendant took the witness chair in her own behalf, it was not improper for the court to allow the solicitor to cross-examine her regarding her driving record, the status of her driver\u2019s license, and the number of times her license had been suspended.\nDefendant\u2019s eighth assignment of error is as follows:\n\u201cThe court erred in allowing the State through its attorney Scott to argue to the jury that these traffic offenses such as the one which the defendant was being tried for was the reason why people were complaining about high automobile insurance.\u201d\nThe record does not disclose what, if anything, the solicitor argued to the jury regarding automobile liability insurance rates; therefore, we cannot determine whether his argument was in any way improper. Because the appellant has failed to show any prejudicial error, this assignment of error is1 overruled.\nWe have examined all of the defendant\u2019s assignments of error and conclude that the defendant had a fair trial in the superior court free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Britt concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert Morgan, Attorney General, and James B. Richmond, Trial Attorney, for the State.",
      "Franklin Smith for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CORINA BATES RHODES\nNo. 7017SC539\n(Filed 16 December 1970)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 3\u2014 status of operator\u2019s license \u2014 admissibility of records\nThe records of the Department of Motor Vehicles, properly authenticated, are competent for the purpose of establishing the status of a person\u2019s operator\u2019s license and driving privilege.\n2. Automobiles \u00a7 3\u2014 driving while license in state of suspension \u2014 cross-examination of defendant on driving record\nIn a prosecution charging defendant with driving while her license was suspended, it was proper for the solicitor to cross-examine the defendant with respect to her driving record, the status of her driver\u2019s license, and the number of times her license had been suspended, where defendant did not request that her driving record, as certified by the Motor Vehicles Department, be limited or restricted in any way.\nAppeal by defendant from McConnell, Superior Court Judge, 7 May 1970 Session of Surry Superior Court.\nThe defendant Corina Bates Rhodes was charged in a warrant, proper in form, with operating a motor vehicle while her driver\u2019s license was suspended in violation of G.S. 20-28(a). Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty in the superior court, the case was submitted to the jury upon evidence which tended to show that on 30 October 1968, at about 3:20 p.m., North Carolina Highway Patrolman S. C. Foster saw the defendant operating a 1959 Ford automobile on the C. C. Camp Road (rural paved road 1138) near its intersection with Interstate 77. The defendant\u2019s driver\u2019s license had been suspended by the North Carolina Department of Motor Vehicles on 14 October 1970 under the provisions of G.S. 20-16 (a) (5) for an accumulation of twelve points. The defendant offered evidence tending to show that on 80 October 1968 her driver\u2019s license was in a state of suspension and that she did not drive an automobile on that date at all, and that her sister, Linda Bates Jenkins, did drive the 1959 Ford automobile on the C. C. Camp Road in the afternoon of the date in question and saw the highway patrolman.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From a judgment of imprisonment for six months1, suspended on condition that the defendant pay a fine of $200.00 and the costs, the defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals.\nRobert Morgan, Attorney General, and James B. Richmond, Trial Attorney, for the State.\nFranklin Smith for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 178,
  "last_page_order": 181
}