{
  "id": 8554142,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN PENNY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Penny",
  "decision_date": "1972-12-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 7210SC835",
  "first_page": "147",
  "last_page": "148",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "17 N.C. App. 147"
    }
  ],
  "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": "168 S.E. 2d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 505",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551432
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/5/0505-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563201
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0292-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2644,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059838237673316
    },
    "sha256": "69bb09270c71d3c5c1ee7a6764419162ac969cf8ecb66afc016b1a02ccfed912",
    "simhash": "1:0320b84fa5f64059",
    "word_count": 440
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:26:57.402584+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN PENNY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error is to the failure of the trial judge to grant his motion for a mistrial based on allegedly improper and prejudicial testimony by the arresting officer. The record reveals:\n\u201cI (Officer McLeod) went back to Mr. Penny where he and I had a conversation about this was going to be his driver\u2019s license because he had just been tried\u2014\nMr. Churchill: Objection.\nA. \u2014on a case in Hillsborough.\nCourt: Sustained.\nMr. Churchill: I move for a mistrial.\nCourt: Motion por a Mistrial Denied. Do not consider the statement that the witness just made. Has nothing to do with the case.\u201d\nThe incident complained of occurred while the witness was providing rebuttal testimony for the State. Defendant had theretofore testified as a witness for himself and had stated: \u201cI have one ticket for 70 in a 60 and one for 68 in a 60 and one careless and reckless in April, 1970. ... I have not been convicted of any offense since March 28,1971.\u201d\nWe do not think defendant was prejudiced by the incident, particularly in view of the court\u2019s admonition to the jury. See State v. Battle, 269 N.C. 292, 152 S.E. 2d 191 (1967); also, State v. Smith, 5 N.C. App. 505, 168 S.E. 2d 494 (1969). The assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant assigns as error a portion of the jury charge explaining \u201creasonable doubt.\u201d We have carefully considered this assignment but conclude that it too is without merit.\nWe hold that defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Thomas B. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Tharrington & Smith by Roger W. Smith for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN ALLEN PENNY\nNo. 7210SC835\n(Filed 20 December 1972)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 34\u2014 defendant\u2019s guilt of other offense \u2014 prejudicial testimony \u2014 correction of error\nDefendant\u2019s motion for mistrial in a drunken driving case based on allegedly improper and prejudicial testimony by the arresting officer as to defendant\u2019s prior convictions was properly denied, particularly in view of the court\u2019s prompt admonition to the jury to disregard the testimony.\nAppeal by defendant from Copeland, Judge, at the 5 June 1972 Special Criminal Session of Wake Superior Court.\nBy warrant proper in form defendant was charged with operating a vehicle on the highways of this State while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. From a verdict of guilty and judgment imposed thereon in district court, defendant appealed to superior court where he was found guilty by a jury and from judgment imposed on that verdict, he appealed to this court.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Thomas B. Wood, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nTharrington & Smith by Roger W. Smith for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0147-01",
  "first_page_order": 171,
  "last_page_order": 172
}