{
  "id": 8555129,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN DICKENS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Dickens",
  "decision_date": "1971-05-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 717SC337",
  "first_page": "392",
  "last_page": "394",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 392"
    }
  ],
  "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. 2d 30",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 116",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551332
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0116-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "179 S.E. 2d 795",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 N.C. App. 676",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555318
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/10/0676-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 457",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.C. 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559842
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/275/0670-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 S.E. 2d 259",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "247 N.C. 754",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628613
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/247/0754-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 776",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 251",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549464
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0251-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 365,
    "char_count": 6123,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.597,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5609988184892476e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6769226700089465
    },
    "sha256": "1d89ad57241798f7903ffbbf73bff82cf30f7c95094a95bfd4e8a8f60b4aaf3e",
    "simhash": "1:477fb439f90734c1",
    "word_count": 1014
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Brock and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN DICKENS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nAppellant does not bring forward and argue assignments of error Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9. Those not brought forward and argued are deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Court of Appeals of North Carolina; Gibson v. Montford, 9 N.C. App. 251, 175 S.E. 2d 776 (1970).\nBy assignment of error No. 2, defendant argues that the court erred in failing to exclude testimony of Deputy Sheriff E. H. Sawyer, Jr., to the effect that he \u201csaw the X-ray that showed where the bullet stopped.\u201d The court sustained defendant\u2019s objection as to what it showed and overruled it as to seeing the X-ray. Defendant argues that the court should have instructed the jury to disregard the testimony. The record does not reveal the question posed by the solicitor, nor whether objection was made thereto. We can only assume that the answer to a part of which defendant has excepted was partially responsive and partially unresponsive. Defendant interposed no motion to strike that part of the answer stating what the X-ray showed, nor did he request the court to instruct the jury not to consider it. His objection now to the court\u2019s failure to instruct the jury comes too late. State v. Knight, 247 N.C. 754, 102 S.E. 2d 259 (1958) . In any event the evidence was not prejudicial. Defendant admitted shooting the prosecuting witness, and she testified, without objection, to the severity of the injury sustained, the length of time she remained in the hospital, and the treatment she received. This assignment of error is without merit.\nDefendant next argues that he was denied the right to cross-examine a witness for the State. The alleged error occurred during the State\u2019s rebuttal evidence. Ray Pittman was recalled and examined by the solicitor and testified that he had not seen a pistol of the prosecuting witness. On cross-examination he testified:\n\u201cThese people could be mistaken when they say they saw a gun in Reatha\u2019s hand. I didn\u2019t see one. I know she didn\u2019t have a pocketbook and she didn\u2019t have one in her hand.\nQ. So when Linwood Bandy said she had a gun, he was wrong, wasn\u2019t he?\nObjection : Sustained.\u201d\nIt is obvious that the cross-examination was becoming argumentative. The court had the discretion and the duty to keep the cross-examination within reasonable bounds, and the exercise of that discretion was not error. State v. Bumper, 275 N.C. 670, 170 S.E. 2d 457 (1969). This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error are directed to the court\u2019s charge to the jury. The purported assignments of error are not in compliance with our rules. While it is perfectly proper to group two or more exceptions under a single assignment of error where all the exceptions so grouped relate to a single question of law, the grouping of several exceptions' relating to different questions of law under a single assignment of error constitutes a broadside assignment of error, therefore, ineffective. Nye v. University Development Co., 10 N.C. App. 676, 179 S.E. 2d 795 (1971). The purported assignments of error to the charge do not quote the portion to which appellant objects nor do they contain a statement of what defendant contends the court should have charged. Daly v. Weeks, 10 N.C. App. 116, 178 S.E. 2d 30 (1970). Nevertheless, we have carefully examined the charge of the court and are of the opinion that when read contextually, it sufficiently declared and explained the law arising on the evidence as to all the substantial features of the case and is free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Brock and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MORRIS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Rosser, for the State.",
      "Howard A. Knox, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HERMAN DICKENS\nNo. 717SC337\n(Filed 26 May 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 166 \u2014 abandonment of assignments of error\nAssignments of error not brought forward and argued in the brief are deemed abandoned.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 162 \u2014 failure to instruct jury to disregard testimony\nWhere trial court sustained defendant\u2019s objection to testimony by a deputy sheriff as to what an X-ray showed, but defendant made no motion to strike the testimony and did not request the court to instruct the jury not to consider it, defendant cannot for the first time on appeal object to the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury to disregard the testimony.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 169\u2014 failure to\u2019 instruct' jury to disregard testimony \u2014 absence of prejudice\nIn this prosecution for felonious assault, defendant was not prejudiced by failure of the court to instruct the jury to disregard testimony by a deputy sheriff that he saw an X-ray \u201cthat showed where the bullet stopped,\u201d where defendant admitted shooting the prosecutrix, and the prosecutrix testified without objection to the severity and treatment of the injury she sustained.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 88; Witnesses \u00a7 8 \u2014 argumentative cross-examination\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in the disallowance of argumentative cross-examination of a State\u2019s witness.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 163\u2014 grouping of exceptions under single assignment \u2014 broadside assignments\nWhile it is proper to group two or more exceptions under a single assignment of error when they relate to a single question of law, the grouping of several exceptions relating to different questions of law under a single assignment of error constitutes a broadside assignment and is ineffective.\nAppeal by defendant from Cohoon, Judge, 12 November 1970 Session, Superior Court of Edgecombe County.\nDefendant was charged with feloniously assaulting Reatha Mae Jones with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflicting serious injury not resulting in death. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a firearm inflicting serious injury. Judgment was entered imposing a prison term of five years. Defendant appealed. He was represented at trial by court-appointed counsel. He is represented on appeal by court-appointed counsel. The State of North Carolina has furnished him a transcript of his trial and has caused the record on appeal and brief to be printed at no cost to him.\nAttorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General Rosser, for the State.\nHoward A. Knox, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0392-01",
  "first_page_order": 416,
  "last_page_order": 418
}