{
  "id": 8551978,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD Z. HIGGENS (alias Floyd Robinson)",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Higgens",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 7217SC737",
  "first_page": "434",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 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": "31 S.E. 2d 757",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 618",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8611079
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0618-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 283,
    "char_count": 3740,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.549,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530747931636169
    },
    "sha256": "7d00698cc997de9ac99c77b9ffa924488dd45f852c76640ccd5406509cffd5ec",
    "simhash": "1:1e55884034fef215",
    "word_count": 620
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Graham concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD Z. HIGGENS (alias Floyd Robinson)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe note at the outset that defendant\u2019s name is spelled variously throughout the original record as \u201cHiggens,\u201d \u201cHiggins\u201d and \u201cHeggins\u201d while his alias is given as both \u201cRobertson\u201d and \u201cRobinson.\u201d However, no contention has been raised to the effect that defendant and the person referred to in the warrants, indictments, affidavit of indigency and commitment orders, et al., are not one and the same person.\nDefendant challenges the admissibility of the testimony of the driver of the car with which the victim\u2019s auto collided to the effect that the prosecuting witness ran up to her screaming, \u201cHe is going to kill me.\u201d The test of evidence submitted under the res gestae doctrine is set out in Coley v. Phillips, 224 N.C. 618, 31 S.E. 2d 757. We find, and so hold, that this testimony meets the three qualifications required of testimony to be admissible under the res gestae exception to the hearsay evidence rule and it was properly admitted.\nDefendant contends that it was error to accept the driver\u2019s conclusions as to the prosecuting witness\u2019 emotional state and behavior at the time of the collision. The long-standing rule in North Carolina is that a lay witness may give his opinion as to, among other things, the emotions displayed by a given person on a given occasion. Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 129. The testimony of the driver accepted by the court was not in conflict with this rule. All of defendant\u2019s assignments of error directed to the admission of the other driver\u2019s testimony are overruled.\nDefendant brings forward numerous other assignments of error, all involving well-established principles of law and none of them disclose prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Graham concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.",
      "Hiatt & Hiatt by V. Talmage Hiatt for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. FLOYD Z. HIGGENS (alias Floyd Robinson)\nNo. 7217SC737\n(Filed 25 October 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 73, 77\u2014 declaration of prosecuting witness \u2014 admissibility as res gestae\nIn a prosecution for kidnapping and armed robbery, the trial court properly admitted as part of the res gestae testimony of- a third person as to the prosecuting witness\u2019s statement that defendant was going to kill her. .. .\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 50\u2014 emotional state of victim \u2014 opinion testimony admissible\nTestimony of a third person as to the prosecuting witness\u2019s emotional state immediately following the commission of the offense was properly admitted in the trial court as a lay witness may give his opinion as to the emotions displayed by a given person on a given occasion.\nCertiorari to review trial before Martin, Judge, 9 August 1971 Session of Superior Court held in SURRY County.\nDefendant was convicted on indictments charging kidnapping and armed robbery. We allowed certiorari to perfect a late appeal.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that defendant, armed with a pistol, forced a young married female to enter her own car, give the defendant six dollars from her purse and drive him approximately twenty miles into the country. Defendant then told his victim that he would have to kill her because she could identify him. In an effort to escape, the victim deliberately collided with an oncoming car, jumped out of her own vehicle and ran to the other vehicle screaming, \u201cHe is going to kill me.\u201d The driver of the other car testified that the prosecuting witness was \u201cbegging and pleading\u201d for help and \u201cshe was just wild.\u201d\nDefendant admitted riding with the prosecuting witness but asserted that it was with her consent and that they had made a \u201cdate\u201d to meet and go out together.\nJudgment was entered imposing a prison sentence in each case.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Edwin M. Speas, Jr., for the State.\nHiatt & Hiatt by V. Talmage Hiatt for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0434-01",
  "first_page_order": 458,
  "last_page_order": 460
}