{
  "id": 8554228,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE PERRY and JAMES PERRY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Perry",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-19",
  "docket_number": "No. 7320SC644",
  "first_page": "449",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 449"
    }
  ],
  "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": "148 S.E. 29",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 N.C. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627934
      ],
      "year": 1929,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/197/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573591
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 S.E. 2d 869",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "264 N.C. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574040
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/264/0470-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 281,
    "char_count": 4097,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.554,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530919756325561
    },
    "sha256": "be10816df78c530f6b36c19cbc5a5e05024683b3ef1691f31f03bb8f65bb0139",
    "simhash": "1:36a9e122feb138ba",
    "word_count": 641
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:34.966448+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE PERRY and JAMES PERRY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy their first assignment of error, defendants contend the court erred in admitting for purpose of corroboration a written statement made by State\u2019s witness Patterson shortly after he was' arrested, arguing that portions of the statement did not corroborate, but, in fact, contradicted the witness.\nWhere the credibility of a witness has been put in issue by cross-examination, testimony of prior consistent statements made by the witness are competent for the purpose of corroboration. State v. Norris, 264 N.C. 470, 141 S.E. 2d 869 (1965); State v. Brooks, 260 N.C. 186, 132 S.E. 2d 354 (1963). Slight variance between the prior statements and the witness\u2019 testimony does not render the corroborating evidence incompetent, but merely goes to its weight, it being for the jury to determine whether the testimony does in fact corroborate the witness. 2 Strong, N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law, \u00a7 89, p. 615.\nWhile, the statement introduced in the case at bar was corroborative in several respects, the statement contained portions detrimental to defendants not covered by the witness\u2019 testimony. In State v. Brooks, supra, p. 189, Justice Sharp, writing for the court, said:\n\u201cIf a prior statement of a witness, offered in corroboration of his testimony at the trial, contains additional evidence going beyond his testimony, the State is not entitled to introduce this \u2018new\u2019 evidence under a claim of corroboration. Neither may the State impeach or discredit its own. witness by introducing his prior contradictory statements under the guise of corroboration. (Citations.)\n* \u2756 \u2756 *\n\u201cWhere portions of a document are competent as corroborating evidence and other parts incompetent, it is the duty of the party objecting to the evidence to point out the objectionable portions. Objections to evidence en masse will not ordinarily be sustained if any part is competent. (Citations.)\u201d\nThe record discloses that defendants did not point out those portions of the statement which did not corroborate the witness but obj\u00e9cted to the statement en masse. The assignment of error is overruled.\nThe remaining assignments of error brought forward and argued in defendants\u2019 brief pertain to the court\u2019s charge to the jury. We have carefully reviewed the charge, with particular reference to the portions excepted to, but conclude that when the .charge is considered in its entirety it complies with the statute and is free from prejudicial error. G.S. 1-180; State v. Moore, 197 N.C. 196, 148 S.E. 29 (1929).\nIn the trial of this cause, we find\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Robert G. Webb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Joseph P. McCollum, Jr., for appellant James Perry.",
      "Griffin & Humphries by James E. Griffin and Charles \u00dc. Humphries for appellant Willie Perry."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIE PERRY and JAMES PERRY\nNo. 7320SC644\n(Filed 19 September 1973)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 89, 162 \u2014 statement admitted for corroboration \u2014 general objection \u2014 portions competent for corroboration\nAlthough an accomplice\u2019s written statement which was admitted for. the purpose of corroboration contained additional evidence going beyond the testimony of the accomplice, defendants\u2019 objection to the statement en masse was properly overruled where portions of the statement were competent as corroborating evidence and defendants failed to point out those portions of the statement which did not corroborate the witness.\nAppeal by defendants from McConnell, Judge, 19 February 1973 Criminal Session, Union Superior Court.\nBy indictment proper in form, defendants Willie Perry and James Perry, together with one David Patterson, were charged with the armed robbery of Adam Thompson on 5 December 1972, taking from Thompson the sum of $387.00. Defendants Perry were tried together, pleaded not guilty, and Patterson was called as witness for the State.\nA jury found defendants guilty as charged and from judgments imposing prison sentences of 20-25 years as to defendant Willie Perry and 15-20 years as to defendant James Perry, defendants appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Robert G. Webb, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nJoseph P. McCollum, Jr., for appellant James Perry.\nGriffin & Humphries by James E. Griffin and Charles \u00dc. Humphries for appellant Willie Perry."
  },
  "file_name": "0449-01",
  "first_page_order": 473,
  "last_page_order": 475
}