{ "id": 8554192, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT D. JEFFRIES", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Jeffries", "decision_date": "1968-12-11", "docket_number": "No. 687SC385", "first_page": "218", "last_page": "221", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "3 N.C. App. 218" } ], "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": "110 S.E. 2d 865", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 175", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623941 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0175-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 2d 515", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 444", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0444-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 S.E. 2d 140", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8610537 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "48 S.E. 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "136 N.C. 610", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8661481 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/136/0610-01" ] }, { "cite": "41 S.E. 66", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N.C. 655", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274745 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0655-01" ] }, { "cite": "138 S.E. 2d 777", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "263 N.C. 73", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567166 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/263/0073-01" ] }, { "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "258 N.C. 89", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559589 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/258/0089-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 N.C. App. 145", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550779 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/1/0145-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 346, "char_count": 6292, "ocr_confidence": 0.557, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.505025008557212e-08, "percentile": 0.44665364660256257 }, "sha256": "1eefbbb56b3c062a375edd1d0232e9ab5f2e553c9c686e70823145e48db6f94b", "simhash": "1:8635526854afdc60", "word_count": 1043 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:22.618564+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Campbell and MokRis, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT D. JEFFRIES" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mallard, C.J.\nDefendant contends that when he, as a witness for himself, denied that he had previously been convicted of any crimes, it was error to permit the solicitor to cross-examine him further about crimes committed by him, as a juvenile, as well as after he ceased being a juvenile. Defendant contends that though he later admitted on cross-examination having committed crimes that the solicitor should not have been permitted to continue to cross-examine him after he had made a denial. This contention is without merit. Admissions by the defendant on cross-examination of prior convictions were competent to impeach him as a witness. The case of State v. Brown, 1 N.C. App. 145, cited by the defendant, does not hold that the defendant as a witness cannot be cross-examined. In Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 112, the rule is stated as follows:\n\u201cFor purposes of impeachment a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may be cross-examined with respect to previous convictions of crime, but his answers are conclusive, and the record of his convictions cannot be introduced to contradict him.\u201d (emphasis added)\nIn this case no record or other evidence was offered to contradict him. The defendant contradicted himself. To hold that the solicitor could not continue to question the defendant after a simple denial of prior convictions would effectively eliminate cross-examination of him.\nDefendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit is also without merit. Since the case goes back for another trial, we refrain from discussing the evidence in detail. However, there was ample competent evidence for submission to the jury on the charge in the warrant of an assault causing serious bodily injury. G.S. 14-33 (a); State v. Jones, 258 N.C. 89, 128 S.E. 2d 1; State v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E. 2d 777.\nDefendant contends that the indictment charges only the crime of simple assault. This contention is also without merit. In support of this contention the defendant cites State v. Battle, 130 N.C. 655, 41 S.E. 66 and State v. Thornton, 136 N.C. 610, 48 S.E. 602. These two cases were, in effect, overruled in the case of State v. Gregory, 223 N.C. 415, 27 S.E. 2d 140, in which it is stated:\n\u201cIn our opinion, the statement in the indictment that the assault inflicted serious injury is sufficient without further elaboration, and the fact becomes a matter of proof upon the trial. Except as a convenience in determining the jurisdiction of the court in the first instance, it is questionable whether the insistence that so significant an expression as 'serious injury\u2019 be further explained served any useful purpose, even at common law. In the present instance, we feel that the more reasonable rules pertaining to indictments for statutory crimes should be pursued.\u201d\nThe defendant was not charged with an assault with a deadly weapon. The able trial judge inadvertently erred when he instructed the jury that they could return a verdict of guilty as charged if they found that the defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon. The judge also erred when he failed to submit to the jury, for its determination as warranted by the evidence in this case, the lesser included offense of simple assault. State v. Worthey, 270 N.C. 444, 154 S.E. 2d 515. Simple assault is a lesser degree of the crime of aggravated assault which was charged in the warrant. G.S. 15-170; State v. Gooding, 251 N.C. 175, 110 S.E. 2d 865. The judge is required to declare and explain the law arising on the evidence without being requested to do so. G.S. 1-180.\nSince the foregoing instructions were prejudicial to the defendant, the verdict and judgment are vacated and the defendant is awarded a\nNew trial.\nCampbell and MokRis, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mallard, C.J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Mrs. Christine Y. Denson for the State.", "Vernon F. Daughtridge for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT D. JEFFRIES\nNo. 687SC385\n(Filed 11 December 1968)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 cross-examination of defendant as to prior convictions\nAdmissions by defendant on cross-examination of prior convictions are competent to impeach him as a witness.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 cross-examination of defendant as to prior convictions\nWhere, in a prosecution for aggravated assault, the defendant at first denied on cross-examination that he had previously been convicted of any crimes, it was not error for the court to permit the solicitor to cross-examine the defendant further about crimes committed by him as a juvenile and after he ceased being a juvenile, no record or other evidence being introduced to contradict defendant.\n3. Assault and Battery \u00a7 14\u2014 assault causing serious injury\nThe evidence in this case is held, sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of assault causing serious bodily injury.\n4. Assault and Battery \u00a7 11\u2014 indictment for aggravated assault\nAn indictment charging an assault \u201ccausing serious bodily injury\u201d is sufficient to charge an aggravated assault, it not being necessary that the nature of the injury be described in order to charge more than a simple assault.\n5. Assault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 IS, 16\u2014 warrant charges aggravated assault\nIn a prosecution upon a warrant charging defendant with an assault \u201cwith his fists and his feet causing serious bodily injury,\u201d it was error for the court 'to instruct the jury that they could return a verdict of guilty as charged if they found defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon.\n6. Assault and Battery \u00a7 16\u2014 prosecution for aggravated assault \u2014 submission of question of simple assault\nIn this prosecution for aggravated assault, the court erred in failing to submit to the jury, for its determination as warranted by the evidence in this case, the lesser included offense of simple assault.\nAppeal by defendant from Parker, J., April 1968 Criminal Session of Superior Court of Edgecombe County.\nDefendant was charged in a warrant with assaulting Danny Bone on 11 February 1968 \u201cwith his fists and his feet causing serious bodily injury.\u201d From a judgment of guilty and sentence imposed thereon in Recorder\u2019s Court, the defendant appealed. Upon his trial in Superior Court, the jury returned a verdict of guilty, sentence of two years was imposed, and defendant appealed.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Mrs. Christine Y. Denson for the State.\nVernon F. Daughtridge for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0218-01", "first_page_order": 238, "last_page_order": 241 }