{
  "id": 8555778,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Logan",
  "decision_date": "1975-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 7526SC543",
  "first_page": "670",
  "last_page": "672",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "27 N.C. App. 670"
    }
  ],
  "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": "205 S.E. 2d 558",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 N.C. App. 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11299168
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/22/0055-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3051,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.589,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36691772377462933
    },
    "sha256": "0b7f0c37af78fc131b12139a06b45c29b3c58652d8d5d063bd364f8d169ce3d9",
    "simhash": "1:9f6b7037557a71d8",
    "word_count": 497
  },
  "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 Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant contends in his first assignment of error that the State should not have been allowed to introduce evidence on redirect examination concerning his sale of illegal drugs to Officer Snyder on 6 June 1973, because this evidence had no relation to anything brought out during his cross-examination of .Officer Snyder.,\nThe trial court has discretion to admit evidence on redirect examination unrelated to the witness\u2019s cross-examination which, through oversight, he has failed to elicit on direct examination. McCormick on Evidence, 2d ed., \u00a7 32; 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence, \u00a7 36 (Brandis Rev. 1973). The evidence in question was relevant and admissible to show intent, motive, and guilty knowledge. State v. Logan, 22 N.C. App. 55, 205 S.E. 2d 558 (1974). This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s remaining assignment of error is directed to a portion of the court\u2019s charge to the jury. In our opinion the charge considered as a whole was free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.",
      "Olive, Downer, Williams and Price, by Paul J. Williams, for defendant appellant,"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. WILLIAM LOGAN\nNo. 7526SC543\n(Filed 3 December 1975)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 87 \u2014 redirect examination \u2014 evidence unrelated to cross-examination \u2014 admissibility\nThe trial court has discretion to admit evidence on redirect examination unrelated to the witness\u2019s cross-examination which, through oversight, has not been elicited on direct examination.\nAppeal by defendant from Falls, Judge. Judgment entered 8 April 1975 in Superior Court, Mecklenburg County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 October 1975.\nDefendant was indicted and tried for distribution of heroin. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Larry Reid Snyder, a Charlotte policeman, went to defendant\u2019s home on 11 June 1973 and asked defendant if he \u201chad gotten any of the good junk in that he had told me about several days prior.\u201d Defendant \u201ctold him that he did not have any new junk in hut that he had some of the old junk in.\u201d Snyder purchased two tinfoil containers from defendant and paid him $24.00.\nOn cross-examination Snyder testified that he had first talked to defendant on 31 May 1973. On redirect examination Snyder testified that on 6 June 1973 he \u201cpurchased two tinfoil containers and one bag of vegetable material\u201d from defendant and that \u201c[a]t this time the defendant told me that this junk was not really that good but that in a couple of days that he would get some more junk that was better. ...\u201d\nThe State also offered evidence that the two tinfoil containers of \u201cjunk\u201d purchased by Snyder from defendant on 11 June were analyzed and found to contain heroin.\n. Defendant testified that he had not seen Snyder or sold any heroin to him on 11 June 1973. He denied seeing Officer Snyder on 31 May 1973.\nFrom a verdict of guilty of unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, heroin, and judgment pronounced thereon, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Claudette Hardaway, for the State.\nOlive, Downer, Williams and Price, by Paul J. Williams, for defendant appellant,"
  },
  "file_name": "0670-01",
  "first_page_order": 698,
  "last_page_order": 700
}