{
  "id": 8523053,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JERRY HOOPER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hooper",
  "decision_date": "1991-08-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 9021SC789",
  "first_page": "662",
  "last_page": "663",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "103 N.C. App. 662"
    }
  ],
  "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": "352 S.E.2d 424",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 N.C. 84",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4745368
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/319/0084-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "337 S.E.2d 551",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 N.C. 167",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4716382
      ],
      "year": 1985,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/315/0167-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E.2d 698",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571127
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0281-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 3194,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.776,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7505592024863226
    },
    "sha256": "edc2ca648f5dcfafb102e6952ecd4cc30a02b4f7971a1a6f544768304d549fe0",
    "simhash": "1:9694c47bf8b39ce3",
    "word_count": 528
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:13.805826+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Greene concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JERRY HOOPER, Defendant-Appellant"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of attempted second degree rape in violation of G.S. 14-27.6 and second degree kidnapping in violation of G.S. 14-39. The sex offense was based upon allegations in the indictment that the victim, Vauteria Elaine Moseley, was mentally defective, see G.S. 14-27.1, G.S. 14-27.5, and that defendant knew or should have known that. The evidence, all by the State, tends to establish all the facts alleged. Defendant contends that the evidence erroneously includes the expert testimony of Darlena Mixon as to the victim\u2019s mental retardation, and the testimony of the victim, who he argues is not a qualified witness. Neither contention has merit and we find no error.\nThe court\u2019s finding that Darlena Mixon was well qualified to give expert testimony as to Vauteria Elaine Moseley\u2019s mental retardation is abundantly supported by competent evidence and is therefore conclusive. State v. Johnson, 280 N.C. 281, 185 S.E.2d 698 (1972). With respect thereto the evidence shows, inter alia, that she was educated to be a school psychologist, had served as a school psychologist for twenty-three years, and had tested the intellectual capacity of approximately 2,000 children and adults, including that of the victim.\nWhether Vauteria Elaine Moseley was qualified to testify was a question of fact for the trial judge to determine in his discretion. State v. Fearing, 315 N.C. 167, 337 S.E.2d 551 (1985). In finding that she was a qualified witness, the court noted that he had observed the witness and heard her answers to the questions asked by both sides and had no doubt as to her ability to answer \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d to any of them. Since this indicates that the finding has a rational basis, it cannot be disturbed. State v. Hicks, 319 N.C. 84, 352 S.E.2d 424 (1987).\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Greene concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Long, for the State.",
      "David F. Tamer for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Plaintiff-Appellee v. JERRY HOOPER, Defendant-Appellant\nNo. 9021SC789\n(Filed 6 August 1991)\n1. Rape and Allied Offenses \u00a7 4 (NCI3d)\u2014 mental retardation of rape victim \u2014 expert testimony \u2014qualification of witness\nThe trial court\u2019s finding that a witness was qualified to give expert testimony as to a rape victim\u2019s mental retardation was supported by evidence that the witness was educated to be a school psychologist, had served as a school psychologist for twenty-three years, and had tested the intellectual capacity of approximately 2,000 children and adults.\nAm Jur 2d, Expert and Opinion Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 178, 180; Rape \u00a7 68.\n2. Witnesses \u00a7 1 (NCI3d)\u2014 mentally retarded victim \u2014competency as witness\nThe trial court did not err in finding that a mentally retarded rape and kidnapping victim was qualified to testify where the court noted that it had observed the witness and heard her answers to the questions by both sides and had no doubt as to her ability to answer \u201cyes\u201d or \u201cno\u201d to any of them.\nAm Jur 2d, Rape \u00a7 103.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments entered 7 December 1989 by Judge Howard R. Greeson, Jr. in FORSYTH County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 1991.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Karen E. Long, for the State.\nDavid F. Tamer for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0662-01",
  "first_page_order": 692,
  "last_page_order": 693
}