{
  "id": 8548691,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE LEE WOOTEN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wooten",
  "decision_date": "1972-06-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 726SC120",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "196",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 N.C. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "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": "144 S.E. 2d 203",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 N.C. 452",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8575677
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/265/0452-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 S.E. 2d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "6 N.C. App. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549742
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/6/0596-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S.E. 2d 667",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 N.C. 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569683
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/263/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 S.E. 2d 190",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 498",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560773
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0498-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 376",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "274 N.C. 295",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560020
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/274/0295-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 S.E. 2d 774",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "231 N.C. 467",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/231/0467-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 S.E. 2d 716",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8548361
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0094-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 S.E. 2d 781",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "254 N.C. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627686
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/254/0658-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 324,
    "char_count": 5342,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530479576222397
    },
    "sha256": "5f0620169d105e380a2439cc72a4f9626f72de51eccde486c0d6081a505177cf",
    "simhash": "1:072b846a1c0c1d65",
    "word_count": 870
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:51.335715+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE LEE WOOTEN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns as error the asking of certain questions of the defendant by the trial judge which questions, defendant contends, were prejudicial to defendant and in violation of G.S. 1-180. \u201cIt is well settled in this State that the trial judge can ask questions of a witness in order to obtain a proper understanding and clarification of the witness\u2019 testimony.\u201d State v. Strickland, 254 N.C. 658, 119 S.E. 2d 781; see also, State v. Blalock, 9 N.C. App. 94, 175 S.E. 2d 716. It has also been stated, in State v. Perry, 231 N.C. 467, 57 S.E. 2d 774, that, \u201cThe comment made or the question propounded should be considered in the light of all the facts and attendant circumstances disclosed by the record, and unless it is apparent that such infraction of the rules might reasonably have had a prejudicial effect on the result of the trial, the error will be considered harmless.\u201d Viewing the questions here complained of in light of the circumstances at trial, we hold that the questions were proper for clarification of the testimony and did not constitute prejudicial error. State v. Colson, 274 N.C. 295, 163 S.E. 2d 376; State v. Strickland, supra.\nDefendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial. \u201cMotions for a mistrial or a new trial based on misconduct affecting the jury are addressed to the discretion of the trial court. [Citation omitted.] Unless its rulings thereon are clearly erroneous or amount to a manifest abuse of discretion, they will not be disturbed.\u201d State v. Sneeden, 274 N.C. 498, 164 S.E. 2d 190. The record discloses no reason why the judge should have granted defendant\u2019s motion. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant\u2019s motion, made at the close of all the evidence, to dismiss his court-appointed counsel. There is nothing in the record to indicate that defendant desired to conduct the remainder of his own defense. \u201cIn the absence of any substantial reason for replacement of court-appointed counsel, an indigent defendant must accept counsel appointed by the court, unless he desires to present his own defense.\u201d State v. McNeil, 263 N.C. 260, 139 S.E. 2d 667. It has also been stated, in State v. Moore, 6 N.C. App. 596, 170 S.E. 2d 568, that, \u201cAn expression by a defendant of an unfounded dissatisfaction with his court-appointed counsel does not entitle him to the services of another court-appointed attorney.\u201d Defendant\u2019s assignment of error directed to the trial judge\u2019s failure to dismiss court-appointed counsel is without merit.\nDefendant\u2019s fourth assignment of error is that the trial court fundamentally misstated the testimony of a defense witness. \u201cWe have repeatedly held that an inadvertence in stating contentions or in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the attention of the court in time for correction. After verdict, the objection comes too late.\u201d State v. Cornelius, 265 N.C. 452, 144 S.E. 2d 203. The alleged inadvertence was not called to the trial judge\u2019s attention in this case.\nDefendant assigns as error that the trial court erred in failing to charge on the law regarding accomplice testimony. This assignment of error is overruled. No such request was made at trial and, absent a request, the court is not required to charge on the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of an accomplice. Moreover, the fact is that the court did, without request, properly instruct the jury as to the credibility of interested witnesses, whether for the prosecution or the defense.\nIn the trial from which defendant appealed, we find no error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Christine A. Witcover, Associate Attorney, for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE LEE WOOTEN\nNo. 726SC120\n(Filed 28 June 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99 \u2014 court\u2019s questions to defendant \u2014 clarification\nQuestions which the trial court asked defendant were proper for clarification of the testimony and did not constitute prejudicial error.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 128 \u2014 denial of mistrial\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial.\n3. Constitutional Law \u00a7 32\u2014 motion to dismiss appointed counsel \u2014 denial\nThe trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion, made at the close of all the evidence, to dismiss his court-appointed counsel.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 113 \u2014 recapitulation of evidence \u2014 inadvertence \u2014 necessity for objection\nAn inadvertence in recapitulating the evidence must be called to the trial court\u2019s attention in time for correction.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 117 \u2014 accomplice testimony \u2014 instructions\nAbsent a request, the trial court is not required to charge on the weight and credibility to be given the testimony of an accomplice.\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, Judge, 13 September 1971 Criminal Term of Superior Court held in Bertie County.\nDefendant was charged in two indictments with (1) larceny of a truck belonging to Stackhouse, Inc., and, (2) breaking and entering and larceny. The cases were consolidated for trial. Defendant represented by court-appointed counsel, pleaded not guilty. Upon a verdict of guilty in each case and the entry of judgments thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Christine A. Witcover, Associate Attorney, for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 220
}