{ "id": 11298721, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM KENT BLACKWELDER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Blackwelder", "decision_date": "1974-06-05", "docket_number": "No. 7418SC423", "first_page": "18", "last_page": "22", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "22 N.C. App. 18" } ], "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": "193 S.E. 2d 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 334", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565099 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0334-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 344", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558806 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0344-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559188 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2092654 ], "year": 1872, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/67/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 N.C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8693849 ], "year": 1842, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/24/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "181" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "year": 1971, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 399, "char_count": 6292, "ocr_confidence": 0.609, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07, "percentile": 0.7531282711849223 }, "sha256": "81e6ed273c7af73e330021b837c3af4d9ea8ce5facf9ac7f2dbfe208d9aa74b6", "simhash": "1:d7292c7bb7cf88c1", "word_count": 1011 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Carson concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM KENT BLACKWELDER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is based upon his exception to the court\u2019s allowance of certain questions propounded to defendant on cross-examination. Defendant does not argue that a defendant in a criminal case who testifies in his own behalf may not be subjected to impeachment by questions related to specific acts of criminal, degrading or disparaging conduct; however, he argues that the questions in this case did not deal with specific acts. That portion of the cross-examination to which defendant excepted proceeded as follows:\n\u201cQ. How many times have you smoked marijuana? Objection. Sustained as to the form of the question.\nQ. How many times have you possessed marijuana before April 4, 1973, and one year prior to that time? Objection. Overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 9.\nA. One year prior to that time?\nQ. Other than what is marked State\u2019s Exhibit 1, had you ever before April 4, 1973, possessed marijuana? Objection. Overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 10.\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. On how many occasions? OBJECTION. OVERRULED.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 11.\nA. Are you talking about one year before?\nThe solicitor answered I am talking about any time. All my life? The solicitor answered, \u201cAnywhere.\u201d I\u2019d say at least on seventy-five occasions up till the summer of 1972.\nQ. Had you ever smoked marijuana \u2014 before April 4, 1973? Objection. Overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 12.\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. How many times ? Objection. Overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 13.\nA. Fifty times up until the summer of 1972.\nQ. Over what period of time would you smoke these marijuana cigarettes? Objection. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 14.\nA. I\u2019d say over a period of two years.\nQ. Have you ever possessed any other controlled substances other than marijuana prior to April 4, 1973? OBJECTION. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 15.\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. What types were they? Objection. Overruled. Dependant\u2019s Exception No. 16.\nThe witness asked, \u201cThis is in my whole life?\u201d\nQ. Anywhere in the world.\nA. Speed. Amphetamines.\nQ. What else? Objection. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 17.\nA. LSD.\nQ. What else?\nThe witness asked: \u201cDo you want to know how many times ?\u201d\nQ. LSD, that is Lysergic Acid Diethylamide, isn\u2019t it? Objection. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 18.\nQ. What else?\nA. Barbiturates. Objection and Move to Strike. De-pendant Moves por a Mistrial. Overruled and Motion Denied.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 19.\nQ. The barbiturates weren\u2019t prescribed by a doctor, were they? Objection. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 20.\nA. I don\u2019t know if they were or not.\nQ. They weren\u2019t prescribed for you, were they?\nA. No. Objection. Overruled.\nDependant\u2019s Exception No. 21.\nQ. What else? Objection. Overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s Exception No. 22.\nQ. Have you consumed any amphetamines ? OBJECTION. Objection Sustained.\nQ. Have you possessed heroin? Objection. Objection Sustained.\u201d\nChief Justice Bobbitt addressed himself to the problem of the scope of cross-examination of a defendant in a criminal trial in State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 675, 185 S.E. 2d 174, 181 (1971), where he said:.\n\u201cIt is permissible, for purposes of impeachment, to cross-examine a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, by asking disparaging questions concerning collateral matters relating to his criminal and degrading conduct. State v. Patterson, 24 N.C. 346 (1842) ; State v. Davidson, 67 N.C. 119 (1872) ; State v. Ross, 275 N.C. 550, 553, 169 S.E. 2d 875, 878 (1969). Such questions relate to matters within the knowledge of the witness, not to accusations of any kind made by others. We do not undertake here to mark the limits of such cross-examination except to say generally (1) the scope thereof is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and (2) the questions must be asked in good faith.\u201d\nSee also State v. Black, 283 N.C. 344, 196 S.E. 2d 225 (1973), and State v. Mack, 282 N.C. 334, 193 S.E. 2d 71 (1972) .\nIn the case at bar, defendant, who was shown to be an outstanding high school senior, admitted possession and distribution of the marijuana; he contended, however, that his actions resulted from the continued insistence of an undercover agent who proved to be a High Point police officer. Defendant testified that eventually he was persuaded to buy the marijuana from a third party and to resell it to the officer, merely as a favor to the officer. In view of those contentions, we think the trial court clearly was justified in permitting the district attorney to \u201csift the witness\u201d in order to show the defendant\u2019s involvement in violating the narcotic laws. The questions asked defendant related to matters within his knowledge; and there is nothing to indicate that the questions were not asked in good faith. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion.\nFor the reasons stated, we find\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Carson concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General William F. O\u2019Connell, for the State.", "Clarence C. Boyan for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM KENT BLACKWELDER\nNo. 7418SC423\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 past violations of narcotics laws \u2014 cross-examination of defendant proper\nIn a prosecution for possession and distribution of marijuana the trial court did not err in allowing the solicitor to cross-examine defendant thoroughly with respect to his involvement in violating the narcotic laws where the defendant admitted possession and distribution of marijuana on the occasion charged but contended that his actions resulted from the continued insistence of an undercover agent who proved to be a public officer.\nAppeal by defendant from Lupton, Judge, 22 October 1973 Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Guilford County, High Point Division.\nDefendant was charged in separate bills of indictment with the felonious possession of marijuana with the intent to distribute, and the felonious distribution of marijuana, in violation of G.S. 90-95 (a) (1). He entered pleas of not guilty to both charges, the jury returned verdicts of guilty as charged in both bills, and the court entered judgment imposing two one-year sentences in the custody of the Commissioner of Correction as a committed youthful offender, to run concurrently. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General William F. O\u2019Connell, for the State.\nClarence C. Boyan for defendant." }, "file_name": "0018-01", "first_page_order": 50, "last_page_order": 54 }