{
  "id": 11299310,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID CHARLES LEONARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Leonard",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7422SC433",
  "first_page": "63",
  "last_page": "64",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 63"
    }
  ],
  "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": "195 S.E. 2d 561",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 218",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558331
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0218-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 238,
    "char_count": 2892,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2395365521310316
    },
    "sha256": "4dc7e5a707c2f46bab1429c9eb4600e1a6f8c9f66bfb4a582276e672a27358da",
    "simhash": "1:e694627e53b61ee3",
    "word_count": 459
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:09:41.671000+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and CARSpN concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID CHARLES LEONARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nThe single question for review is presented by defendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in granting, over timely objection, the State\u2019s motion to be allowed to examine its own witness, Timothy Coe, as a hostile witness. The record indicates that at the beginning of direct examination, immediately before the State\u2019s motion, Coe unexpectedly attempted, through vague answers, to avoid giving specific and detailed material testimony which he had previously included in voluntary statements given to law officers. In thereafter allowing the solicitor to examine Coe with leading questions based upon these prior statements, the trial court did not abuse its discretion. It is clear that the solicitor was taken by surprise by the witness\u2019s evasive answers, and the questions were not asked for the purpose of discrediting the witness, but to give the witness opportunity \u201cto set the matter right.\u201d See State v. Anderson, 283 N.C. 218, 195 S.E. 2d 561.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and CARSpN concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Robert R. Reilly for the State.",
      "Larry L. Eubanks for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DAVID CHARLES LEONARD\nNo. 7422SC433\n(Filed 5 June 1974)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 90\u2014 allowing State to examine own witness as hostile witness\nThe trial court did not err in granting the State\u2019s motion to be allowed to examine its own witness as a hostile witness where the witness unexpectedly attempted, through vague answers, to avoid giving specific and detailed material testimony which he had previously included in voluntary statements given to law officers.\nOn Certiorari to review defendant\u2019s trial and conviction before Rousseau, Judge, 21 June 1973 Session of Superior Court held in Davidson County.\nDefendant was indicted for feloniously receiving stolen goods, to which he pled not guilty. The State\u2019s evidence showed: In the late evening of 20 March 1973, State\u2019s witness Timothy Coe and four other youths broke into Temple\u2019s Grocerteria in Lexington, N. C., removed therefrom approximately $1,300.00 worth of merchandise, including knives, stereophonic equipment and ammunition, and carried the same to the living room of defendant\u2019s house. Earlier in the day, defendant had been told of the planned break in, and he had told Coe and the others what items to look for. Defendant was present when the stolen goods were delivered to his house and supervised their placement in his living room. Armed with a search warrant, investigating officers discovered the bulk of the stolen goods in the attic of defendant\u2019s house at 6:00 a.m. on the morning after the break in. The jury found defendant guilty as charged, and judgment was entered thereon imposing sentence of imprisonment. Defendant gave notice of appeal. To permit perfection of the appeal, this Court subsequently granted his petition for writ of certiorari.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan by Associate Attorney Robert R. Reilly for the State.\nLarry L. Eubanks for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0063-01",
  "first_page_order": 95,
  "last_page_order": 96
}