{
  "id": 8552636,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDALL P. COURSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Courson",
  "decision_date": "1975-10-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 7512SC508",
  "first_page": "268",
  "last_page": "270",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 268"
    }
  ],
  "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": "164 S.E. 2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 N.C. App. 266",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8554613
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/3/0266-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 785",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574441
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0710-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 S.E. 2d 657",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.C. 589",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625476
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/219/0589-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "183 S.E. 2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.C. App. 357",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549507
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/12/0357-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 95",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 239",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8572379
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0239-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 790",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 736",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555387
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0736-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573490
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 N.C. App. 40",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8546766
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/14/0040-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S.E. 2d 500",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 N.C. 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561298
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/266/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4386,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.612,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530800058227333
    },
    "sha256": "8383f94b6fdbec0f4029562074c90093e22760912a4f05d044ab53bcf48c1285",
    "simhash": "1:03c861666ed78df8",
    "word_count": 736
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Mor\u00e9is and Hedrick concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDALL P. COURSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant was tried a day after the trial judge commended the district attorney in the presence of the jury panel for taking a nol pros in another case. Defendant argues that it was error not to allow a continuance because the judge\u2019s remark implied that there was sufficient evidence to convict in his case.\nA motion for continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial judge and his ruling is not reviewable absent a manifest abuse of discretion. O\u2019Brien v. O\u2019Brien, 266 N.C. 502, 146 S.E. 2d 500 (1966) ; Johnson v. Johnson, 14 N.C. App. 40, 187 S.E. 2d 420 (1972). The trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for continuance.\nDefendant assigns error to the admission of the testimony of Kimberly Anne Yorke. The defendant contends that Miss Yorke was incompetent to testify because of her tender age and because of her lack of comprehension of the nature of the proceedings against her stepfather.\nThe competency of a witness is addressed to the discretion of the trial court and where the record discloses that upon the voir dire the court inquired into the child\u2019s intelligence and understanding and admitted her testimony upon evidence supporting the conclusion of competency, we will not find that the trial court abused its discretion. State v. Bowden, 272 N.C. 481, 158 S.E. 2d 493 (1968) ; State v. Markham, 20 N.C. App. 736, 202 S.E. 2d 790 (1974).\nDefendant further argues that the trial court erred in failing to sustain the objection to a leading question asked by the prosecutor. It is an established rule that it is within the discretion of the trial court to permit counsel to ask leading questions. State v. Johnson, 272 N.C. 239, 158 S.E. 2d 95 (1967); State v. Westmoreland, 12 N.C. App. 357, 183 S.E. 2d 265 (1971) ; McKay v. Bullard, 219 N.C. 589, 14 S.E. 2d 657 (1941). Considering the youth of the witness and the sensitivity of the issue, we find that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion.\nFinally, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to sustain objections as to prior acts of the defendant. It is generally recognized that evidence of other crimes may not be introduced for the purpose of showing the accused to be a man of bad character likely to commit the crime charged. However, in the present case the evidence was properly admitted to show intent, state of mind or design, and motive. State v. Hartsell, 272 N.C. 710, 158 S.E. 2d 785 (1968) ; State v. Spain, 3 N.C. App. 266, 164 S.E. 2d 486 (1968).\nWe have carefully reviewed all defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error. Defendant received a fair trial, free, of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Mor\u00e9is and Hedrick concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.",
      "James D. Little for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RANDALL P. COURSON\nNo. 7512SC508\n(Filed 15 October 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014 continuance \u2014 denial proper\nThe trial court did not err in denying defendant\u2019s motion for continuance made on the ground that the trial court\u2019s commendation one day before of the district attorney for taking a nol pros in another case implied that there was sufficient evidence to convict in defendant\u2019s case.\n2. Witnesses \u00a7 1 \u2014 nine year old crime against nature victim \u2014 competency to testify\nIn a prosecution of defendant for crime against nature with his nine year old stepdaughter, the competency of the stepdaughter to testify was addressed to the discretion of the trial court.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 87\u2014 leading question proper\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to ask a leading question, considering the youth of the witness and the sensitivity of the issue.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 34 \u2014 prior acts of defendant \u2014 evidence admissible\nThe trial court properly allowed evidence as to prior acts of defendant which showed intent, state of mind or design, and motive.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 13 February 1975 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 26 September 1975.\nDefendant was tried under an indictment charging him with the crime against nature with Kimberly Anne Yorke, the defendant\u2019s nine-year-old stepdaughter. The jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Deputy Attorney General Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.\nJames D. Little for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0268-01",
  "first_page_order": 296,
  "last_page_order": 298
}