{
  "id": 8549583,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE LEROY SIMON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Simon",
  "decision_date": "1975-05-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 758SC50",
  "first_page": "71",
  "last_page": "72",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 71"
    }
  ],
  "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": 261,
    "char_count": 4043,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.559,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7531259544475373
    },
    "sha256": "8b336950d5b447dcf04e75bf667ee0c1980f2b4b53837570f7035fb5698d4561",
    "simhash": "1:9c54613967c4d44b",
    "word_count": 675
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE LEROY SIMON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nThe evidence was sufficient to go to the jury and defendant\u2019s assignment of error based on the denial of his motion for judgment of nonsuit is without merit.\nDuring the solicitor\u2019s argument to the jury he referred to defendant\u2019s admission of an earlier conviction of larceny. The solicitor was allowed to argue his contention that that evidence was admissible for the purpose of showing the identity, motive and mental state of defendant at the time of the commission of the crime for which he was then being tried. Defendant has assigned this argument as error. It is true, of course, that the solicitor\u2019s contention as to the application of the law with respect to that particular evidence was incorrect. Nevertheless, the argument of the contention was not error prejudicial to defendant. Moreover, at no time did defendant request the judge to instruct the jury that the evidence was competent only as it bore on defendant\u2019s credibility as a witness. When a defendant contends that evidence is competent for one purpose and not for another, it is his duty to request the court to instruct the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it is competent. The assignment of error is overruled.\nCareful consideration of the record before us, including the charge to the jury, has led us to conclude that defendant\u2019s trial was free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Alfred N. Salley, for the State.",
      "Herbert B. Hulse and George F. Taylor, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLYDE LEROY SIMON\nNo. 758SC50\n(Filed 21 May 1975)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 34, 102\u2014 jury argument as to defendant\u2019s prior conviction \u2014 no prejudicial error\nDefendant was. not prejudiced by the solicitor\u2019s jury argument contending; that defendant\u2019s admission of an earlier conviction of larceny was admissible for the purpose of showing the identity, motive and mental state of defendant at the time of the commission of the crime for which he was then being tried, particularly since defendant did not request the'judge to instruct the .jury that the evidence was competent only as it bore on defendant\u2019s credibility as a witness.\nAppeal by defendant from Rome, Judge. Judgment entered 31 October 1974 in Superior Court, Wayne County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 March 1975.\nDefendant was convicted of felonious breaking and entering and felonious larceny.\nEvidence for the State tended to show the following. On the afternoon of 4 September 1974, Mabell McNair came home from school. As she entered her yard, she met defendant coming out of her yard. He was carrying a black and white portable television set which Miss McNair recognized as her mother\u2019s. She had a brief verbal exchange with defendant and was able to get a close look at him.\nAs defendant left her yard, Miss McNair ran to the back of her house and observed that the screen in the bathroom window had been removed. The bathroom window was open, and the lock had been removed.\nMiss McNair found her sister and informed her of the encounter with defendant. The two sisters looked for defendant, found him, and followed him until they saw him leave the television behind a drugstore. Defendant then went to a nearby pool hall,, and Miss McNair\u2019s sister called the police. A police officer found the television .set behind the drugstore but was unable to locate defendant. '\nAbout one week later Miss McNair saw defendant again, and the police were called. Defendant was at a house a couple of doors down from the McNair\u2019s house, and Miss McNair identified defendant for the officer who then made the arrest.\nDefendant testified that he was not in Goldsboro on 4 September 1974, never removed a television set from the McNair home, and never possessed such a set. On direct examination, defendant testified that he previously had been convicted of larceny of an automobile.\nJudgment imposing a prison sentence was entered.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Deputy Attorney General R. Bruce White, Jr., and Assistant Attorney General Alfred N. Salley, for the State.\nHerbert B. Hulse and George F. Taylor, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0071-01",
  "first_page_order": 99,
  "last_page_order": 100
}