{ "id": 8556065, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY FIELDS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Fields", "decision_date": "1975-05-07", "docket_number": "No. 759SC156", "first_page": "664", "last_page": "665", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "25 N.C. App. 664" } ], "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": "187 S.E. 2d 20", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573537 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 2d 356", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "281 N.C. 275", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8574824 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/281/0275-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 273, "char_count": 3630, "ocr_confidence": 0.603, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.20602610422460924 }, "sha256": "924625d447400f6ba72dab643296b29fc83c1e6b656454737ac57f55d339002b", "simhash": "1:c2ff2826572f0df7", "word_count": 610 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:30:12.075015+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Parker and Vaughn concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY FIELDS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BRITT, Judge.\nDefendant contends first that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony of Dr. Currin, a medical expert witness, who examined the alleged victim, Valerie Henderson, soon after the occurrence. The record reveals:\nDr. Currin testified that he examined Valerie and found multiple excuriations or abrasions near the entrance to her vagina; that there were considerable blood stains on the pants removed from Valerie; however, he found no tear or laceration of the hymen and found no sperm. Dr. Currin was then asked by the prosecuting attorney if he had an opinion based upon his medical examination of Valerie on the night in question as to whether \u201cshe had been the victim' of an attack\u201d. Defendant objected to the question, the court overruled the objection, and the witness answered, \u201c[m]y opinion was that certainly she had been molested\u201d.\nAssuming, arguendo, that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony, in the light of the mass of other evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt, we hold that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Cox, 281 N.C. 275, 188 S.E. 2d 356 (1972), and cases therein cited.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine one of the State\u2019s witnesses as to the exact times of his prior convictions. The witness had theretofore admitted on cross-examination that he had several prior convictions for transporting liquor and that his last conviction was \u201cabout a year ago\u201d. While it is the rule that wide latitude is allowed in the cross-examination of a witness, it is also well recognized that the latitude of cross-examination rests largely in the trial court\u2019s discretion, especially where the questions are repetitious. State v. Robinson, 280 N.C. 718, 187 S.E. 2d 20 (1972) ; 1 Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, \u00a7 35 (Brandis rev. 1973). We hold that the court did not abuse its discretion.\nFinally, defendant contends that the court erred in accepting the verdict of the jury. Suffice it to say that we have carefully reviewed the record with respect to this contention and conclude that the court did not err.\nWe hold that defendant received a fair and impartial trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Parker and Vaughn concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "BRITT, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sandra M. King, for the State.", "Smith arid Banks, by J. Henry Banks, for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY FIELDS\nNo. 759SC156\n(Filed 7 May 1975)\n1. Rape \u00a7 10 \u2014 opinion testimony child had been molested\nIn a prosecution for assault on a female under the age of 12 years with intent to commit rape, the admission of a question to a medical expert as to whether he had an opinion concerning whether the child \u201chad been the victim of an attack,\u201d and the expert\u2019s opinion \u201cthat certainly she had been molested,\u201d if erroneous, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the mass of other evidence of defendant\u2019s guilt. \u25a0\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89 \u2014 times of prior convictions\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow defense counsel to cross-examine a State\u2019s witness as to the exact times of his prior convictions.\nOn writ of certiorari to review judgment.entered by Bailey, Judge, on 25 June 1974 in Superior Court, Vance County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 17 April 1975.\n\u2022 Defendant was charged with the felony of assaulting a female under the age of 12 years with the intent to commit rape. The alleged victim was eight years old. Defendant pleaded not guilty, a jury found him guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of 15 years, he appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Sandra M. King, for the State.\nSmith arid Banks, by J. Henry Banks, for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0664-01", "first_page_order": 692, "last_page_order": 693 }