{
  "id": 8550405,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THEODORE McMILLAN alias THEODORE RICHARDSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McMillan",
  "decision_date": "1976-02-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7512SC783",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "28 N.C. App. 493"
    }
  ],
  "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": 252,
    "char_count": 3830,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "7e8ea1e2fa2c05fddba03f29474e36cb150840fb131d3d81a78bed5029a63cb6",
    "simhash": "1:571f5492f874b5d7",
    "word_count": 602
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:46.500479+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THEODORE McMILLAN alias THEODORE RICHARDSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant contends the trial court erred in unduly limiting certain portions of defense counsel\u2019s argument to the jury. We agree.\nDuring argument to the jury and while summarizing defendant\u2019s contentions, defense counsel attempted to argue that the robbery victim, Marie McPherson, had mistakenly identified 2 photographic exhibits (S-l and S-2) as being photographs of the same person. These exhibits had been shown to the witness, along with other photographs, prior to defendant\u2019s arrest. In sustaining the State\u2019s objection to this argument, the trial judge said:\n\u201cI do not recall there was any evidence that anybody said these particular photographs were of the same person.\u201d\nThe record, however, shows the following from the cross-examination of Mrs. McPherson:\n\u201cQ. Are these two photographs here marked for identification as' S-l and S-2 the ones which you identified as being the same person?\nA. Yes, sir.\"\nLater in his argument to the jury defense counsel contended that the State\u2019s witness, Mrs. McPherson, had testified that the person pictured in photographic exhibit D-4 \u201clooked like the defendant\u201d or \u201cmight be the defendant.\u201d The court also sustained the State\u2019s objection to this argument. The record shows that on cross-examination Mrs. McPherson had testified, with reference to the picture marked D-4, that \u201cit could be Theodore,\u201d that \u201c[tjhere is a little resemblance,\u201d and \u201cYes, it looks like Theodore off a little.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s case rested entirely upon the identification testimony of Mrs. McPherson, the victim of the robbery. No other evidence connected defendant with the crime. The robbery occurred on 25 September 1974. At that time Mrs. McPherson told the police that the robber was clean shaven. Approximately three weeks later she picked out defendant\u2019s, photograph from a number of photographs shown her by the police and identified the picture as being that of the robber. The photograph was taken 18 October 1974 and showed defendant with a beard. Defendant testified and denied any connection with the robbery. He also testified and presented testimony of others that on the date of the robbery and for sometime prior thereto and thereafter he wore a beard. Thus, the credibility of Mrs. McPherson\u2019s identification testimony was at issue and was all important in this case. Indeed, it presented the only real issue for the jury to resolve. Defendant was entitled to present any competent evidence relevant to that issue and by cross-examination of the State\u2019s witness to bring to the jury\u2019s attention any matter which might tend to weaken her identification testimony. He was also entitled to have his counsel argue the significance of that evidence to the jury. By unduly restricting defense counsel\u2019s argument to the jury, the court committed error for which defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Thomas M. Ringer, Jr. for the State.",
      "Cherry a/nd Grimes by Donald W. Grimes for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. THEODORE McMILLAN alias THEODORE RICHARDSON\nNo. 7512SC783\n(Filed 4 February 1976)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 jury argument of defense counsel \u2014 limitation \u2014 prejudicial error\nThe trial court erred in refusing to allow defense counsel to argue to the jury various facts concerning the robbery victim\u2019s photographic identification of defendant, since those facts had been brought out in cross-examination of the victim and since the State\u2019s case rested entirely upon the identification testimony of the victim.\nAppeal by defendant from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 21 April 1975 in Superior Court, Cumberland County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 21 January 1976.\nDefendant appeals from judgment imposing a prison sentence on his conviction for armed robbery.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Thomas M. Ringer, Jr. for the State.\nCherry a/nd Grimes by Donald W. Grimes for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 521,
  "last_page_order": 522
}