{
  "id": 8549112,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL ROBERSON WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1974-10-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 7417SC718",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 N.C. App. 225"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 233,
    "char_count": 3510,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.595,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.768973351887763e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3605105934747547
    },
    "sha256": "51d061278874ecaa8ef8e682fa74da9deff0748324943340e4d1e57f88c92f8e",
    "simhash": "1:c0dc17cd46285222",
    "word_count": 576
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:32:39.683180+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Baley concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL ROBERSON WILSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to allow the physician who examined the child several hours after the alleged crime had taken place to give an explanation for being unable to reach a definite opinion as to whether penetration had occurred. The assignment is without merit.\nThe physician\u2019s testimony tended to show: There was a slight reddening or irritation in the child\u2019s rectal area; there was no bruising, no tearing, no cuts or bleeding and no sperm was found. There was some stool smeared around the rectum. The reddening could have been caused from not washing or could have been caused by a slight penetration or attempt to penetrate.\nThe physician, called as a witness by defendant, was asked several times to explain why he did not have an opinion regarding penetration; upon objections by the State, the court did not allow the explanation. We fail to see how the physician\u2019s answer to the question could have added anything to the testimony he was allowed to provide. This being so, the defendant was in no way prejudiced.\nDefendant\u2019s second assignment of error is that the trial judge should not have instructed the jury on the question of flight since there was insufficient evidence to support such an instruction. The evidence tended to show: Defendant was called by his cousin and told that he had been accused of molesting an eight-year-old child and to come and \u201cget it straightened out.\u201d Defendant advised that he would \u201cbe up there\u201d as soon as he could get there; he never arrived nor communicated with his accusers. Later efforts to locate him were unsuccessful. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the court\u2019s instruction with respect to flight.\nWe have reviewed the record and briefs with respect to the remaining assignments of error and find that they too are without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Baley concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "BRITT, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Associate Attorney Thomas M. Ringer, Jr., for the State.",
      "Gwyn, Gwyn & Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CARL ROBERSON WILSON\nNo. 7417SC718\n(Filed 2 October 1974)\n1. Crime Against Nature \u00a7 2\u2014 indefiniteness of physician\u2019s opinion \u2014 refusal to allow explanation \u2014 absence of prejudice\nIn a prosecution for crime against nature, defendant was not prejudiced by the court\u2019s refusal to allow the physician who examined the eight-year-old victim to give an explanation for being unable to reach a definite opinion as to whether penetration of the victim\u2019s rectum had occurred since the physician\u2019s answer could not have added anything to the testimony he was permitted to give.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 46\u2014 instruction on flight \u2014 supporting evidence\nIn a prosecution for crime against nature, the court\u2019s instruction on flight was supported by evidence that defendant was called and \u25a0 told by his cousin that he was accused of molesting an eight-year-old child, that defendant stated he would \u201cbe up there\u201d as soon as he could get there, that defendant never arrived nor communicated with his accusers, and that later efforts to locate him were unsuccessful.\nAppeal by defendant from Rousseau, Judge, 1 April 1974 Session of Superior Court held in Rockingham County.\nDefendant was indicted for committing a crime against nature. The act complained of was anal intercourse with an eight-year-old boy. The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and the court entered judgment imposing prison sentence of ten years. Defendant appealed.\nAttorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Associate Attorney Thomas M. Ringer, Jr., for the State.\nGwyn, Gwyn & Morgan, by Melzer A. Morgan, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 253,
  "last_page_order": 255
}