{
  "id": 8549380,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAUDE GOODSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Goodson",
  "decision_date": "1973-05-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 7315SC359",
  "first_page": "330",
  "last_page": "332",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "18 N.C. App. 330"
    }
  ],
  "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": "171 S.E. 2d 416",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 123",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560350
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0123-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 20",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 718",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573537
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0718-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 3367,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39452956523720106
    },
    "sha256": "09de5923febf85613f0e85b19525481e5c57d82112a0a2ce7ed0d25840d3acf5",
    "simhash": "1:11ad88e8bf567956",
    "word_count": 540
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:14:36.293491+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAUDE GOODSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy assignments of error Nos. 4, 5 and 8, defendant contends the court erred in sustaining the solicitor\u2019s objections to certain questions asked Ellison and Phillips by defense counsel on cross-examination and one question asked defendant on direct examination. The assignments have no merit.\nThe record does not show what the witnesses would have said had they been permitted to answer the questions, therefore, we cannot know whether the rulings were prejudicial. The burden is on an appellant not only to show error but to show prejudicial error. State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20 (1972); State v. Kirby, 276 N.C. 123, 171 S.E. 2d 416 (1969). Furthermore, the information sought by several of the questions was provided in other parts of the testimony. The assignments of error are overruled.\nBy his assignment of error No. 9, defendant contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error \u201cin remonstrating with the defendant during the trial when there was no reason for such remonstration.\u201d The incident complained of occurred while defendant was on the witness stand and was being cross-examined. During the course of the cross-examination, the court sent the jury to their room and then admonished the solicitor and defense counsel as to how they should conduct themselves. The court then admonished the defendant to answer questions of the solicitor, avoid getting \u201csmart\u201d and \u201cbad mouthing\u201d the solicitor. This assignment has no merit. \u2022\nIt is well settled that it is the duty of the presiding judge to supervise and control the trial to prevent injustice to either party. 7 Strong, N. C. Index 2d, Trial, \u00a7 9, pp. 266, 267. The incident complained of occurred in the absence of the jury and we are unable to perceive any prejudice to defendant. The assignment of error is overruled.\nWe have carefully considered the other assignments of error brought forward and argued in defendant\u2019s brief but finding them without merit, they too are overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Claude W. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "John D. Xanthos for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAUDE GOODSON\nNo. 7315SC359\n(Filed 23 May 1973)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 169\u2014 failure of record to show excluded testimony\nThe exclusion of testimony cannot be held prejudicial where the record fails to show what the witnesses would have testified had they been permitted to answer. . .\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 admonishing defendant in absence of jury \u2014 absence of prejudice\nDefendant was not prejudiced when the trial court, in the absence of the jury, admonished defendant to answer questions of the solicitor, and to avoid getting \u201csmart\u201d and \u201cbad mouthing\u201d the solicitor.\nAppeal by defendant from Cooper, Judge, at the 16 October 1972 Session of Alamance Superior Court.\nBy indictment proper in form defendant was charged with (1) feloniously breaking or entering the home of one Lewis and (2) felonious larceny of personal property of the value of $1,978 pursuant to the breaking or entering.\nPrincipal testimony against defendant was provided by two alleged accomplices, Teresa Ellison (Ellison) and Billy Gene Phillips (Phillips). A jury found defendant guilty of the charges and from judgment imposing prison sentences aggregating sixteen years, defendant appealed. .\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Claude W. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJohn D. Xanthos for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0330-01",
  "first_page_order": 354,
  "last_page_order": 356
}