{
  "id": 8555534,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARNOLD TRUMAN WALLER",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Waller",
  "decision_date": "1971-05-26",
  "docket_number": "No. 714SC118",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "435",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "11 N.C. App. 434"
    }
  ],
  "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": "173 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562301
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 S.E. 2d 765",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 535",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562463
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0535-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 310",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.C. 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574745
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/273/0128-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 517",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8562078
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S.E. 3",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "195 N.C. 537",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630610
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/195/0537-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 611",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "213 N.C. 782",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630613
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/213/0782-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 S.E. 2d 343",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "215 N.C. 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8632139
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/215/0778-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 266,
    "char_count": 3768,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4548587003634884e-07,
      "percentile": 0.804643050618009
    },
    "sha256": "bbf364687939a0c4668c638e3a52938fdfee6c6ad948560ba4d36f6d3bf76e20",
    "simhash": "1:132f1b6826bf5bca",
    "word_count": 631
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:10:46.806740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARNOLD TRUMAN WALLER"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant testified at the trial. His first assignment of error is directed to the trial court\u2019s action in requiring him to answer a question directed to him by the assistant solicitor during cross-examination. The question concerned his previous conviction of a specific unrelated prior criminal offense from which he had appealed. In this we find no error. It is well settled in this State that \u201c[f]or purposes of impeachment a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may be cross-examined with respect to previous convictions of crime.\u201d Stansbury, N.C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 112, p. 254. Our Supreme Court has also held that such a witness may be cross-examined with respect to indictments which have been returned against him. State v. Cureton, 215 N.C. 778, 3 S.E. 2d 343; State v. Howie, 213 N.C. 782, 197 S.E. 611; State v. Maslin, 195 N.C. 537, 143 S.E. 3. In the case last cited the court pointed out that while evidence of a mere accusation of crime should be excluded, an indictment duly returned by the grand jury as a true bill is much more than a bare charge. In the present case, more than a mere indictment returned as a true bill was involved. Defendant had actually been convicted of the offense concerning which he was questioned. There was no error in requiring him to answer the question. The court correctly allowed him to explain that he had appealed his conviction and that his appeal was still pending. State v. Calloway, 268 N.C. 359, 150 S.E. 2d 517. Defendant made no request for an instruction that the jury must consider his prior convictions, not as substantive evidence, but only as bearing on his credibility as a witness. If he wished such an instruction, it was incumbent on him to request it. State v. Goodson, 273 N.C. 128, 159 S.E. 2d 310.\nAppellant\u2019s remaining assignment of error brought forward on this appeal is that his constitutional rights were violated in that the punishment imposed by the Superior Court exceeded the punishment which had been imposed by the District Court. The North Carolina Supreme Court has considered this quesstion and passed upon it adversely to appellant\u2019s contentions. State v. Spencer, 276 N.C. 535, 173 S.E. 2d 765; State v. Sparrow, 276 N.C. 499, 173 S.E. 2d 897.\nThe sentences imposed in the Superior Court were within statutory limits.\nIn appellant\u2019s trial and the judgments appealed from, we find\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.",
      "Bailey & Robinson by Edward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ARNOLD TRUMAN WALLER\nNo. 714SC118\n(Filed 26 May 1971)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 impeachment of defendant\nIt is proper for the solicitor to cross-examine defendant concerning a previous and unrelated conviction from which he had appealed.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 138\u2014 punishment \u2014 appeal from district to superior court \u2014 increased sentence\nThe fact that the punishment imposed by the superior court on defendant\u2019s trial de novo exceeded the punishment which had been imposed by the district court in the original trial, held not violative of defendant\u2019s constitutional rights.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Judge, September 1970 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Onslow County.\nDefendant was tried in the District Court on his pleas of not guilty to charges of (1) speeding in excess of 80 miles per hour in a 45 mile per hour speed zone and (2) reckless driving. He was found guilty of both offenses and from the judgments entered in the District Court, appealed to the Superior Court. On trial de novo in the Superior Court, the jury found defendant guilty in both cases, and from judgments imposing prison sentences, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Staff Attorney Richard N. League for the State.\nBailey & Robinson by Edward G. Bailey for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 459
}