{ "id": 8553793, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT JEROME EDWARDS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Edwards", "decision_date": "1975-11-05", "docket_number": "No. 7521SC436", "first_page": "369", "last_page": "373", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "27 N.C. App. 369" } ], "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": "192 S.E. 2d 693", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "16 N.C. App. 456", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552369 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/16/0456-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 543", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767611 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "155 S.E. 2d 173", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569426 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0521-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 S.E. 2d 716", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 N.C. App. 352", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8552527 ], "year": 1974, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "356" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/20/0352-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 745", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 92", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562785 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0092-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 626", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561787 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 341", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "19 N.C. App. 717", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8555726 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/19/0717-01" ] }, { "cite": "148 S.E. 2d 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "267 N.C. 661", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560373 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/267/0661-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 844", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 306", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571880 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0306-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 453, "char_count": 8847, "ocr_confidence": 0.583, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.378631306375088e-08, "percentile": 0.44211863317127753 }, "sha256": "d8d43afc473fd9192905a49baa96a37e8e333cf666a6b41ea173ab01eb805e97", "simhash": "1:037a4333963f1ce5", "word_count": 1408 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:36.927205+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Morris and Hedrick concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT JEROME EDWARDS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a continuance during pretrial arraignment. The defendant sought a continuance in order to cross-examine the State\u2019s identifying witness to establish the witness\u2019s testimony in the record for later impeachment purposes. It is a well established rule in North Carolina that granting a motion for a continuance is within the discretion of the trial court and its exercise will not be reviewed in the absence of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E. 2d 844 (1972); State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E. 2d 593 (1966) ; State v. Morrison, 19 N.C. App. 717, 200 S.E. 2d 341 (1973). We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in denying defendant\u2019s motion for continuance.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to the District Attorney\u2019s questioning of prospective jurors regarding their prejudices against homosexuality. Defendant argues that the District Attorney was in essence testifying to facts which were never presented into evidence.\nThe exercise of the right to inquire into the fitness of jurors is subject to the trial court\u2019s close supervision. The regulation of the manner and extent of the inquiry rests largely in the trial judge\u2019s discretion. State v. Jackson, 284 N.C. 321, 200 S.E. 2d 626 (1973) ; State v. Bryant, 282 N.C. 92, 191 S.E. 2d 745 (1972). The District Attorney was attempting to ascertain whether the jurors could impartially consider the evidence though knowing that the State\u2019s witnesses were homosexuals or transvestites. The purpose for the questioning was legitimately aimed at determining whether a juror, because of a prejudice or predisposition for or against certain witnesses, would be biased and therefore subject to disqualification. We cannot say that the trial judge abused his discretion in permitting the line of questions.\nDefendant argues that the pretrial arraignment procedure and trial before different judges prejudiced the defendant\u2019s discovery rights. He alleges that the trial judge erred in refusing to permit him to reexamine photographs taken at the scene of the crime. Defendant previously had the opportunity to examine the photographs which the State never presented into evidence. Furthermore, defendant does not allege that his defense was prejudiced by the denial of his motion to reexamine the photographs.\nDefendant further argues that the trial court erred in denying his request for the statement of the State\u2019s witness, Gary Adolphus Garret. The defendant concedes that the pretrial arraignment order was not violated but argues that he was surprised by the witness\u2019s testimony. However, examination of Garret\u2019s testimony, noting the rigorous cross-examination, fails to show that the defendant was prejudiced by the surprise of Garret\u2019s testimony. We can find no prejudical error in defendant\u2019s contention.\nDefendant alleges error in the trial court\u2019s sustaining the State\u2019s objections to questions by the defendant regarding the homosexual tendencies of the State\u2019s witnesses. \u201cIt is permissible, for purposes of impeachment, to cross-examine a witness . . . by asking disparaging questions concerning collateral matters relating to his criminal and degrading conduct.\u201d State v. Harrell, 20 N.C. App. 352, 356, 201 S.E. 2d 716 (1974). However, the scope of such questions is subject to the trial court\u2019s discretion.\nThe record is replete with references to the homosexual and transvestite tendencies of the State\u2019s witnesses. The witness Ernest Maybanks admitted he had been convicted of female impersonation, and Silious Herring, another witness for the State, testified that it was natural for him to dress as a woman. Furthermore, Cathy Parker, another of the State\u2019s witnesses, testified that everyone, including the State\u2019s witnesses, except her brother and the defendant were dressed as women. We can find no prejudicial error in the trial judge\u2019s sustaining the State\u2019s objections to defendant\u2019s questions regarding the sexual tendencies of the witnesses when sufficient evidence was admitted establishing the sexual behavior pattern of the witnesses.\nDefendant contends that the trial court inadvertently influenced the defendant\u2019s decision not to testify when the court informed him of his right not to take the stand. Defendant\u2019s contention is without merit. The trial judge gave to the defendant a fair statement of his constitutional right not to testify. The trial judge in no way advised the defendant not to testify on his own behalf.\nFinally, it is argued that the trial court erred in overruling the defendant\u2019s objection to the State\u2019s argument to the jury. Defendant contends that the District Attorney commented on the defendant\u2019s failure to testify. However, upon reading the portion of the District Attorney\u2019s argument complained of, it becomes evident that the thrust of the comment is not on the defendant\u2019s failure to testify, but on the effect of his pleading not guilty, and the resulting burden of proof imposed on the State in consequence of the not guilty plea.\nFurthermore,. if there were any implications upon the defendant\u2019s failure to testify that may have been raised by the District Attorney\u2019s argument, the judge\u2019s charge cured them. The jury was instructed that the defendant\u2019s failure to testify created no presumption against him, that the law gave him the privilege not to testify, and that \u201chis silence is not to influence your decision in any way.\u201d See State v. Bumpers, 270 N.C. 521, 155 S.E. 2d 173 (1967), rev\u2019d on other grounds, 391 U.S. 543, 88 S.Ct. 1788, 20 L.Ed. 2d 797; State v. Bryant and State v. Floyd, 16 N.C. App. 456, 192 S.E. 2d 693 (1972). We have reviewed defendant\u2019s remaining assignments of error and can find no prejudicial error in .the trial.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Hedrick concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ARNOLD, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf Haskell, for the State.", "Moore, Green, Parrish and Yokley, by Thomas J. Keith, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT JEROME EDWARDS\nNo. 7521SC436\n(Filed 5 November 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 91\u2014 denial of motion for continuance\nThe trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for continuance made during pretrial arraignment so that defendant could cross-examine the State\u2019s identifying witness to establish the witness\u2019s testimony in the record for later impeachment purposes.\n2. Jury \u00a7 6\u2014 examination of prospective jurors \u2014 prejudices against homosexuality\nThe trial court in a homicide case did not err in permitting the district attorney to question prospective jurors regarding their prejudices against homosexuality for the purpose of ascertaining whether the jurors could impartially consider the evidence with knowledge that the State\u2019s witnesses were homosexuals or transvestites.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 43\u2014 motion to reexamine photograph\nThe trial court in a homicide case did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion to reexamine photographs of the crime scene which were not presented into evidence by the State.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 80\u2014 request to see witness\u2019s statement\nDefendant in a homicide case was not prejudiced by the denial of his request to see the statement of a State\u2019s witness.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 169\u2014 exclusion of testimony \u2014 admission of other testimony of same import\nDefendant in a homicide case was not prejudiced by the exclusion of testimony as to the homosexual tendencies of the State\u2019s witnesses where other evidence was admitted regarding the homosexual and transvestite tendencies of the State\u2019s witnesses.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 argument of district attorney \u2014 failure of defendant to testify\nThe district attorney did not comment on defendant\u2019s failure to testify in his argument to the jury on the effect of defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty and the resulting burden of proof imposed on the State in consequence of such plea.\nAppeal by defendant from Albright, Judge. Judgment entered 10 January 1975 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 16 September 1975.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with the first degree murder of Robert Lee Hauser. Defendant entered a plea of not guilty and was tried before a jury.\nThe evidence tended to establish that Robert Lee Hauser was in the bedroom of a liquor house watching television with Joseph and Cathy Parker. The defendant came into the bedroom and announced that \u201cit was a stickup\u201d and told Hauser to \u201cget it.\u201d While the defendant was talking to Cathy Parker, Hauser ran by the defendant and out of the house. The defendant shot Hauser in the back as he ran away.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of second degree murder. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence, the defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ralf Haskell, for the State.\nMoore, Green, Parrish and Yokley, by Thomas J. Keith, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0369-01", "first_page_order": 397, "last_page_order": 401 }