{
  "id": 8554007,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHAN GLENN COGDELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Cogdell",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-02",
  "docket_number": "No. 751SC248",
  "first_page": "522",
  "last_page": "524",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 N.C. App. 522"
    }
  ],
  "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": "185 S.E. 2d 174",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 663",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571959
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0663-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 874",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 N.C. 366",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572031
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/280/0366-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 773",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 244",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8596934
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0244-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S.E. 2d 505",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623943
      ],
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0273-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 3658,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.61,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.112979051524245e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7634674840116161
    },
    "sha256": "5331522de8148ebb5e87c79e594720006ecb2cc034dbfbf0eb9c551c85667663",
    "simhash": "1:2e4dae25b43ecc4a",
    "word_count": 601
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:59:13.418266+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Martin and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHAN GLENN COGDELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant objects to the District Attorney\u2019s cross-examining him from a transcript of interrogation at the police station. He contends that it was unfair to allow the police chief to .testify from the transcript while ref using, to allow defendant to do the same. This contention is. without merit. ..\nIt is well settled that a witness may refresh his recollection from a. memorandum prepared by him or. in his presence. 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.) \u00a7' 32. It is equally clear that a witness may be impeached by proof of prior inconsistent statements. State v. McPeak, 243 N.C. 273, 90 S.E. 2d 505 (1955) ; State v. Cope, 240 N.C. 244, 81 S.E. 2d 773 (1954). Chief Owens was testifying on direct examination while defendant was being cross-examined with respect to his alibi defense. The court\u2019s rulings on the use of the transcript therefore were hot error.\nDefendant further objects to the District Attorney\u2019s asking a defense witness, Leon Thomas, whether he had ever used or possessed controlled substances. He contends that anything which discredited the witness also discredited his case, and, of course, he is correct. Nevertheless, it is fundamental that on cross-examination a witness may be impeached by inquiry into specific acts of misconduct. State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 185 S.E. 2d 874 (1971) ; State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971). See generally 1 Stansbury, supra, \u00a7 42. The scope of cross-examination rests in the discretion of the trial judge, which in the instant case was not abused.\nDefendant has received a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Martin and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General W. A. Raney, Jr., for the State.",
      "John H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. NATHAN GLENN COGDELL\nNo. 751SC248\n(Filed 2 July 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 87, 89 \u2014 transcript of interrogation \u2014 refreshing recollection\u2014 use in cross-examination\nThe trial court did not err in allowing a police chief to refresh his memory by referring to a transcript of an interrogation of defendant at the police station or in allowing the solicitor to use the transcript to cross-examine defendant as to prior inconsistent statements without first giving defendant an opportunity to read the transcript.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89 \u2014 credibility of witness \u2014 possession or use of narcotics\nThe trial court in an armed robbery case did not err in permitting the district attorney to ask a defense witness whether he had ever used or possessed controlled substances.\nAppeal by defendant from Cohoon, Judge. Judgment entered 10 December 1974 in Superior Court, Pasquotank County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 9 June 1975.\nDefendant was indicted on a charge of armed robbery. He pleaded not guilty and was tried before a jury.\nThe victim, William Alexander, testified that he was alone in his grocery store about 11:00 a.m. on 31 March 1973 when defendant entered, displayed what appeared to be a pistol, and demanded money. Defendant pushed Alexander to the floor and said, \u201cIf you get up, I am going to shoot you.\u201d He then removed some $50.00 from the cash register and left the store.\nDefendant denied participating in the robbery or ever having been in Alexander\u2019s store. He testified that he was with friends on the campus of Elizabeth City State University from approximately 10:30 a.m. until shortly afternoon on the day in question. He offered testimony from four corroborating witnesses.\nThe jury found defendant guilty of common- law robbery. From judgment imposing a sentence of 8 to 10 years\u2019 imprisonment, he appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General W. A. Raney, Jr., for the State.\nJohn H. Harmon for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0522-01",
  "first_page_order": 550,
  "last_page_order": 552
}