{
  "id": 11299168,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Logan",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7426SC353",
  "first_page": "55",
  "last_page": "56",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 55"
    }
  ],
  "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": "281 N.C. 761",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8577000,
        8576941,
        8576974,
        8577013,
        8576957
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/281/0761-04",
        "/nc/281/0761-01",
        "/nc/281/0761-03",
        "/nc/281/0761-05",
        "/nc/281/0761-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573988,
        8573958,
        8573928,
        8573973,
        8574009
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0724-04",
        "/nc/280/0724-02",
        "/nc/280/0724-01",
        "/nc/280/0724-03",
        "/nc/280/0724-05"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 423",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "13 N.C. App. 323",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8553051
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/13/0323-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 171",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596105
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "84"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0171-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572031
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0366-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4137,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.581,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.9715611424866794e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9046720484476122
    },
    "sha256": "bd3e518222e8b7561ca7b499f768f483ecace56cc6822f0d3284dc815ca5fc20",
    "simhash": "1:d527e326421f9a37",
    "word_count": 654
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Campbell and Morris concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nWe find no merit in defendant\u2019s contentions that a series of articles which appeared in local newspapers were so prejudicial that they undermined the possibility of a fair trial in Mecklenburg County and that the court thus erred in denying defendant\u2019s motions for removal to another county, a special venire and a continuance. The court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions. In a related challenge, defendant asserts that the court should have declared a mistrial after the appearance of several newspaper articles about defendant\u2019s trial. These assignments of error are overruled.\nDefendant next asserts that the Solicitor was improperly allowed to ask defendant whether he had previously committed certain other criminal offenses. At the time of the trial, defendant was under indictment for some of those offenses. The Solicitor did not ask whether defendant had been indicted for any of these offenses but whether he committed the acts. It was proper for the Solicitor to attack defendant\u2019s credibility in this manner. Although a defendant may not be asked whether he was indicted for a given act, he may, for purposes of impeachment, be asked if he has committed specific criminal acts. State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E. 2d 874.\nDefendant further contends that Officer Snyder should not have been permitted to testify about prior drug transactions he had with defendant which were unrelated to the present case. On cross-examination, defendant had denied participating in those transactions. Defendant argues that when a defendant is asked whether he has committed a criminal offense, his answer is conclusive and may not be contradicted by other evidence. We hold that the evidence was properly admitted to show intent, motive and guilty knowledge. State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 84.S.E. 2d 364; State v. Johnson, 13 N.C. App. 323, 185 S.E. 2d 423, cert. granted, 280 N.C. 724, appeal dismissed, 281 N.C. 761.\nWe have carefully considered defendant\u2019s other assignments of error including those relating to the court\u2019s modification of a limiting instruction during trial and its refusal to grant a mistrial after the jury was polled. We find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Campbell and Morris concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Parks H. leenhour, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Olive, Howard, Downer, Williams & Price by Paul J. Williams for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN\nNo. 7426SC353\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 15; Jury \u00a7 2\u2014 newspaper articles \u2014 change of venue \u2014 special venire \u2014 continuance\nIn a prosecution for distribution of heroin and marijuana, the trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motions for removal- t\u00f3: another county, a special venire and a continuance based on- a series of articles which appeared in local newspapers.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 cross-examination of defendant \u2014 specific criminal acts\nThe solicitor was properly allowed to ask defendant whether he had committed specified criminal acts for which defendant was under indictment at the time of the trial.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 34\u2014 prior drug transactions \u2014 admissibility '\nIn a prosecution for distribution of heroin and marijuana, an officer was properly allowed to testify about prior drug transactions he had had with defendant for the purpose of showing intent, mo.tive and guilty knowledge, notwithstanding defendant on cross-examination ha.d denied participating in those transactions.\nAppeal by defendant from Ervin, Judge, 3 December 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County.\nDefendant was charged in two bills of indictment - with feloniously distributing heroin and marijuana.\n\u25a0 The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that on 6 June 1973, defendant sold a quantity of heroin and marijuana to Larry R. Snyder,,an undercover agent employed by the Charlotte Police Department.\nDefendant denied selling the drugs and denied seeing Snyder on the occasions the sales were alleged to have been made.\nUpon a verdict of guilty, defendant was sentenced to a prison term of five years on each count.\nDefendant appealed.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Parks H. leenhour, Assistant Attorney General, for the State.\nOlive, Howard, Downer, Williams & Price by Paul J. Williams for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0055-01",
  "first_page_order": 87,
  "last_page_order": 88
}