{ "id": 8554108, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH WILLIAM ARTIS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Artis", "decision_date": "1974-03-06", "docket_number": "No. 7412SC141", "first_page": "73", "last_page": "75", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "21 N.C. App. 73" } ], "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": "166 S.E. 2d 652", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 198", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558305 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0198-01" ] }, { "cite": "167 S.E. 2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 288", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558608 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0288-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 735", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 81", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573795 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0081-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 47", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 633", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573124 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0633-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 516", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "518" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559413 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "572" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0570-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 367, "char_count": 4827, "ocr_confidence": 0.6, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7530912033867612 }, "sha256": "a2ed999dc8a9061a990d2dfa9556aba471577fe89e1f44b426492d758bbfc103", "simhash": "1:865678181071d957", "word_count": 863 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:29.924632+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. JOSEPH WILLIAM ARTIS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nBy his sole assignment of error, defendant contends the court committed prejudicial error in permitting his wife to testify with respect to instances prior to 22 March 1973 wherein defendant mistreated his children (consisting of Myra Ann and a two-year-old son). Defendant argues that admitting the testimony was violative of the rule that in a prosecution for a particular crime, the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense. The assignment is without merit.\nIn State v. Humphrey, 283 N.C. 570, 572, 196 S.E. 2d 516, 518 (1973), we find:\n\u201cThe general rule in North Carolina is that the State may not offer proof of another crime independent of and distinct from the crime for which defendant is being prosecuted even though the separate offense is of the same nature as the charged crime. State v. Long, 280 N.C. 633, 187 S.E. 2d 47; State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364; 1 Stansbury North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 91 (Brandis rev. 1973). However, such evidence is competent to show \u2018the quo animo, intent, design, guilty knowledge, or scienter, or to make out the res gestae, or to exhibit a chain of circumstances in respect of the matter on trial, when such crimes are so connected with the offense charged as to throw light upon one or more of these questions.\u2019 State v. Jenerett, 281 N.C. 81, 187 S.E. 2d 735; State v. Atkinson, 275 N.C. 288, 167 S.E. 2d 241.\u201d\nSee also State v. Moore, 275 N.C. 198, 166 S.E. 2d 652 (1969).\nWe hold that the challenged evidence was competent to show defendant\u2019s quo animo, or state of mind, and the assignment of error is overruled.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Associate Attorney Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for the State.", "Sol G. Cherry, public defender, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOSEPH WILLIAM ARTIS\nNo. 7412SC141\n(Filed 6 March 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 34; Homicide \u00a7 15\u2014 murder of child \u2014 prior mistreatment In a prosecution of defendant for the murder of his 2% year old child by beating and kicking her, testimony by defendant\u2019s wife as to defendant\u2019s mistreatment of his children on prior occasions was competent to show quo animo, or state of mind.\nAppeal by defendant from Ccmaday, Judge, 4 September 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Cumberland County.\nDefendant was charged with the murder of his 2*4 years old daughter, Myra Ann Artis, on or about 24 March 1973. Pertinent evidence, briefly summarized, tended to show:\nAround 5:00 or 6:00 p.m. on 22 March 1973, defendant went home after drinking intoxicants. He got mad with Myra Ann and proceeded to kick her \u201cabout six times.\u201d Defendant\u2019s wife testified: \u201cShe [Myra Ann] went upstairs and he went up there and started whipping her. When she was upstairs, he took his fist and hit her in the stomach, and in the side. He was doing it like he was beating a man or something like that. He was punching her in the stomach and in the back. I would say that he hit her four times. After that he whipped her with a leather belt. She was crying. I gave her a bath and put her to sleep. He then came in and went to sleep.\u201d\nTwo days later, defendant and his wife went to the store and when they returned, Mrs. Artis noticed that Myra Ann would not sit up. Mrs. Artis further testified: \u201cI went upstairs and Joseph, my husband, he came upstairs and found some boo boo on the floor. My little girl boo booed on herself downstairs and I was getting ready to clean her up. I went upstairs and wiped her off. I was changing her panties. This was March 24. Joseph came upstairs and went in the bathroom. He found some boo boo on the floor and got mad and started whipping Myra Ann Artis. He started whipping her with the belt and after a while he started throwing a little round ball at her. He was hitting her all on the stomach and the chest. She was in the room, standing by the couch. She had her back to the couch. He was standing by the door just throwing the ball real hard.\u201d I saw him hit her ten times.\u201d\nThereafter, defendant filled a bathtub with cold water, placed Myra Ann in the tub and kept her in there for about fifteen minutes. When he took her out \u201cshe was just shaking and couldn\u2019t stand up.\u201d A short while later, after further mistreatment by defendant, the child died.\nA pathologist testified that he performed an autopsy on the body of the child; that death resulted from a ruptured liver which could have been caused by a blow to her abdomen and that death could have occurred some two days after the injury.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of second-degree murder and from judgment imposing prison sentence of not less than 25 nor more than 30 years, with credit given for time spent in jail pending trial, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, by Associate Attorney Charles R. Hassell, Jr., for the State.\nSol G. Cherry, public defender, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0073-01", "first_page_order": 101, "last_page_order": 103 }