{ "id": 8554141, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE HUDSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hudson", "decision_date": "1974-11-20", "docket_number": "No. 7426SC786", "first_page": "734", "last_page": "735", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "23 N.C. App. 734" } ], "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 65", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565449 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 557", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "272 N.C. 377", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573009 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/272/0377-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 677", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 273", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571097 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "277" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0273-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 264, "char_count": 3457, "ocr_confidence": 0.612, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.527646540942415e-08, "percentile": 0.34793843193174584 }, "sha256": "86272c8c32f50ea83c6f051479f371a9b15273853960ce6573194fafeee6678a", "simhash": "1:b0e4e42624bf1a26", "word_count": 580 }, "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. EDDIE HUDSON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Judge.\nPrior to the presentation of any evidence, defendant moved that the witnesses for the State be sequestered. His motion named no witnesses and gave no reasons therefor. On appeal, he contends the court\u2019s denial of his motion constituted prejudicial error. He concedes that the sequestration of witnesses is not a matter of right but is discretionary with the trial judge. What was said on this question by Justice Huskins in State v. Taylor, 280 N.C. 273, 277, 185 S.E. 2d 677 (1972), is appropriate here:\n\u201cSequestration of witnesses is discretionary with the trial judge and may not be claimed as a matter of right. Stansbury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 20 (2d Ed., 1963). Refusal to sequester the State\u2019s witness in a criminal case is not reviewable unless an abuse of discretion is shown. State v. Clayton, 272 N.C. 377, 158 S.E. 2d 557 (1968). This accords with the great majority of jurisdictions. 53 Am. Jur., Trial \u00a7 31 (1945). The record before us discloses no reason for sequestration of the State\u2019s two minor witnesses \u2014 the victim and her small brother \u2014 and no abuse of discretion has been shown. That ends the matter.\u201d (Citations omitted.)\nDefendant\u2019s only other assignment of error before us is that the court erred in allowing into evidence photographs of the deceased, defendant\u2019s wife. Again, he concedes that the general law is that if the photograph is relevant and material, the fact that it may be gory and even gruesome will not, standing alone, render it inadmissible. State v. Duncan, 282 N.C. 412, 193 S.E. 2d 65 (1972). Defendant argues, however, that in this case the allowance of the photograph in evidence in addition to the court\u2019s failure to sequester the State\u2019s witnesses created an atmosphere of prejudice which defendant was not able to overcome. He gives no reason for this argument, nor can we assign any cogent reasons therefor. This assignment of error is without merit and overruled.\nDefendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error at which he was represented by competent counsel of his own choosing.\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Baley concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Carson, by Associate Attorney Kaylor, for the State.", "Plumides, Plumides and Shuster, by John G. Plumides, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. EDDIE HUDSON\nNo. 7426SC786\n(Filed 20 November 1974)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 98 \u2014 sequestration of witnesses denied\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion to sequester witnesses where the motion named no witnesses and gave no reasons therefor.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 43\u2014 photographs of deceased \u2014 admission proper\nIn a prosecution for murder and assault with intent to kill, the trial court did not err in allowing into evidence photographs of the deceased.\nAppeal by defendant from Chess, Special Judge, 25 March. 1974 Schedule \u201cD\u201d Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 October 1974.\nThis is a criminal action in which the defendant was charged in separate bills of indictment with the offenses of murder and assault with a deadly weapon with the intent to kill. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty to each charge, but was found guilty by the jury of voluntary manslaughter and assault with a deadly weapon. From a judgment sentencing him to a term of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years for voluntary manslaughter and to a term of two years for assault with a deadly weapon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Carson, by Associate Attorney Kaylor, for the State.\nPlumides, Plumides and Shuster, by John G. Plumides, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0734-01", "first_page_order": 762, "last_page_order": 763 }