{ "id": 8557242, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW NEAL WRIGHT", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wright", "decision_date": "1976-06-16", "docket_number": "No. 7621SC104", "first_page": "752", "last_page": "754", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "29 N.C. App. 752" } ], "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": "125 S.E. 2d 326", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "257 N.C. 32", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565367 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/257/0032-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 794", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 122", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562536 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0122-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "232 N.C. 727", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8614170 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/232/0727-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 279, "char_count": 3688, "ocr_confidence": 0.651, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.3963656022174125e-07, "percentile": 0.6438394670886217 }, "sha256": "a1500a414ee0245b978afb7d589d985471e0f10acd72326fb25850ad90ba523d", "simhash": "1:d49a0668523d98f8", "word_count": 584 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:29:22.308082+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Hedrick and Arnold concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW NEAL WRIGHT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, Judge.\nDefendant contends the trial judge erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine state\u2019s witness, Steve Lynn Kelly, with regard to Kelly\u2019s psychiatric history as a juvenile. During a voir dire hearing, defense counsel questioned Kelly whether he had ever been treated by a psychiatrist and ever been examined at the Child Guidance Clinic, the Juvenile Evaluation Center, the Forsyth County Mental Health Clinic, or the Cameron-Morrison Training School. The court held this testimony to be inadmissible before the jury. We hold the exclusion to have been error. In State v. Armstrong, 232 N.C. 727, 62 S.E. 2d 50 (1950), Chief Justice Stacy held it was reversible error to deny the defense the opportunity to impeach the mentality or intellectual grasp of a witness. The testimony of this particular witness, Kelly, was of significant consequence as he was the only eyewitness to testify concerning the alleged criminal activity of the defendant. \u201cThe denial of any impeachment of the State\u2019s only eyewitness to the [crime] necessitates another hearing. It is always open to a defendant to challenge the credibility of the witnesses offered by the prosecution who testify against him.\u201d State v. Armstrong, supra, at p. 728.\nIn accord with the above, we also hold the exclusion of evidence, in the form of testimony and psychiatric reports, as to psychological evaluation and psychiatric treatment of Kelly to be error. A properly qualified medical expert is allowed to tender his opinion concerning a witness based upon personal observation and other information contained in the patient\u2019s official hospital record. State v. DeGregory, 285 N.C. 122, 203 S.E. 2d 794 (1974). Upon the laying of a proper foundation, hospital records may be admissible as primary evidence as coming within one of the well recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule \u2014 entries made in the regular course of business. Sims v. Insurance Co., 257 N.C. 32, 125 S.E. 2d 326 (1962) ; See Annot., 69 A.L.R. 3rd 22, Admissibility Under Business Entry Statutes of Hospital Records in Criminal Case. We note that no objections to this evidence based upon doctor-patient privilege have been raised.\nFor the errors noted above, the defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.\nJudges Hedrick and Arnold concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Joan H. Byers for the State.", "Randolph and Randolph by Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW NEAL WRIGHT\nNo. 7621SC104\n(Filed 16 June 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 89\u2014 State\u2019s eyewitness \u2014 psychiatric history \u2014 refusal to allow cross-examination erroneous\nThe trial court in a second degree burglary case erred in refusing to permit defense counsel to cross-examine the State\u2019s only eyewitness with regard to his psychiatric history as a juvenile,\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 53\u2014 psychiatric history of witness \u2014 expert medical testimony improperly excluded\nThe exclusion of evidence, in the form of testimony and psychiatric reports, as to psychological evaluation and psychiatric treatment of the State\u2019s eyewitness was error, since a properly qualified medical expert is allowed to tender his opinion concerning a witness based upon personal observation and other information contained in the patient\u2019s official hospital record.\nAppeal by defendant from Seay, Judge. Judgment entered 30 October 1975 in Superior Court, Forsyth County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 24 May 1976.\nDefendant was indicted for the second degree burglary of the home of Mr. and Mrs. Tony Eugene Hamby on 11 May 1975. From a verdict of guilty, defendant was sentenced to seven years in prison as a committed youthful offender.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney General Joan H. Byers for the State.\nRandolph and Randolph by Clyde C. Randolph, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0752-01", "first_page_order": 784, "last_page_order": 786 }