{
  "id": 8553761,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE JOSEPH HILL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hill",
  "decision_date": "1972-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 7226SC584",
  "first_page": "631",
  "last_page": "632",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 N.C. App. 631"
    }
  ],
  "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": "111 S.E. 2d 195",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 N.C. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625162
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/251/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 243",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "262 N.C. 599",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8570150
      ],
      "year": 1964,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/262/0599-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 246,
    "char_count": 3550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.541,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20597320538765002
    },
    "sha256": "7cf3d8c55336893f5e923d30727de30e6546f400b92bd33bfca0d6798244e7f4",
    "simhash": "1:764a3363d66e9df1",
    "word_count": 593
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:27:31.279819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE JOSEPH HILL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nIn the first assignment of error brought forward and argued in his brief, defendant contends that the court erred in allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state that it was \u201cmighty convenient\u201d for the defendant that two possible witnesses were not present. Defendant indicated at trial that the two witnesses would have helped him establish an alibi but one of them was out of the State serving in the Air Force and the whereabouts of the other was1 unknown.\nIn 2 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 102, p. 642, we find: \u201cThe control of the argument of the solicitor and counsel must be left largely to the discretion of the trial court, and an impropriety must be sufficiently grave to be prejudicial in order to entitle defendant to a new trial. It is only in extreme cases of abuse of the privilege of counsel, and when the trial court does not intervene or correct an impropriety, that a new trial may be allowed.\u201d\nWe hold that under the facts in this case, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in allowing the argument complained of and the assignment of error is overruled.\nIn the second assignment of error brought forward in his brief, defendant contends that the solicitor committed prejudicial error when in cross-examining defendant accused defendant of having been convicted of stealing an automobile when there was no \u201cgood faith\u201d basis for such accusation.\nDefendant having voluntarily become a witness for himself, it was proper for the solicitor to ask him the question complained of for the purpose of impeachment, provided the question was based on information and asked in good faith. State v. Heard, 262 N.C. 599, 138 S.E. 2d 243 (1964) ; State v. Sheffield, 251 N.C. 309, 111 S.E. 2d 195 (1959). The record reveals that the solicitor\u2019s question was based on information which the solicitor had and that the question was asked in good faith. The assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have duly considered the other assignments of error argued in defendant\u2019s brief but finding them without merit, they are overruled.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Mallard and Judge Brock concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Don Davis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WAYNE JOSEPH HILL\nNo. 7226SC584\n(Filed 22 November 1972)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 jury argument of solicitor \u2014 reference to absence of defense witnesses \u2014 no error\nThe trial court did not err in a prosecution for housebreaking and larceny in allowing the solicitor in his argument to the jury to state that it was \u201cmighty convenient\u201d for the defendant that two witnesses who allegedly would have helped him establish an alibi were not present.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 impeachment of defendant \u2014 inquiry about previous crimes proper\nIt was proper for the solicitor to ask defendant for the purpose of impeachment if he had been convicted of stealing an automobile where the question was based on information and asked in good faith.\nAppeal by defendant from Ervin, Judge, 17 January 1972 Conflict Session, Mecklenburg Superior Court.\nBy indictment proper in form, defendant was charged with (1) housebreaking, (2) larceny, and (3) receiving. Defendant\u2019s motion for dismissal of the receiving count was allowed but the jury found defendant guilty of the other two charges. From judgment sentencing him to the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections for supervision and treatment as a youthful offender for a term of not less than six years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nDon Davis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0631-01",
  "first_page_order": 655,
  "last_page_order": 656
}