{ "id": 8555404, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DON CHANDLER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Don Chandler", "decision_date": "1976-09-15", "docket_number": "No. 764SC307", "first_page": "646", "last_page": "652", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "30 N.C. App. 646" } ], "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": "156 S.E. 2d 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 391", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564149 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0391-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 487", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 598", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563091 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0598-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 567, "char_count": 11410, "ocr_confidence": 0.729, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.658767980604299e-08, "percentile": 0.2919994563389603 }, "sha256": "be21528fdab41aadf0ab79bef7732fccd1590e537c098876cdd401482a112160", "simhash": "1:87ef60629613baf2", "word_count": 1941 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:42:34.327987+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Britt and Martin concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DON CHANDLER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDRICK, Judge.\nDefendant first argues that the judgment appealed from should be arrested because the verdicts on the two charges of resisting an officer are inconsistent. He argues that since the jury found him not guilty of resisting Officer Jarman, it could not legally find him guilty of resisting Officer Sims. The verdict of not guilty in the case of resisting Officer Jarman is not such a fatal defect appearing on the face of the record as to require that the judgment be arrested in the case of resisting Officer Sims. Under the factual situation here presented, the jury\u2019s verdict in either case was not dependent upon its verdict in the other case. Defendant\u2019s motion to arrest judgment is denied.\nOn three separate occasions during the trial the court instructed the defendant and his witness to confine their response to the question asked. This is the basis for defendant\u2019s exceptions 4, 8, and 14, upon which he bases his second assignment of error. We have examined each and find the court correctly and properly instructed the witness with respect to his or her testimony. The court did not violate G.S. 1-180, as defendant contends, and express an opinion as to the evidence. This assignment of error has no merit.\nOn cross-examination defendant testified that he had been convicted of felonious assault on a police officer, attempted maiming and unlawful wounding, and petty larceny of an auto. On cross-examination he was allowed to testify that he pled guilty to the felonious assault because he had worked a deal. On redirect examination with respect to these convictions the record reveals the following:\n\u201cQ. The instance that the Solicitor \u2014 District Attorney \u2014has asked you about where you were convicted of unlawful wounding, what happened in that case?\nCourt: Objection sustained.\nException No. 9\nQ. Did you enter a plea of guilty or were you convicted by the Court?\nA. I entered a plea of guilty, sir. A bullet richocheted and hit a gentleman and I . . .\nCourt: Sustained. You have answered the question.\nException No. 10\nQ. Did you fire a weapon at anyone?\nA. No, sir.\nCourt: Sustained.\nException No. 11\nQ. Now the occasion that the District Attorney has questioned you about, he said auto larceny, what were you convicted of or plead guilty to?\nA. I pleaded guilty to being in the car because you don\u2019t know about them things ....\nCourt: Sustained. You have answered the question.\nException No. 12\nQ. Did you know at the time that you were in the car that it was stolen?\nA. No, sir.\nQ. After talking with the District Attorney, you entered a plea by your lawyer?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. That was in Virginia?\nA. Yes, sir.\nQ. Now the other charge which the Solicitor asked you about, I believe Felonious Assault, when did that occur; do you recall the date ? I believe you said a police officer was involved ?\nCourt: The question, I thought, was brought up that that was ten years ago, \u201965, wasn\u2019t it?\nAndrews: That was in \u201965.\nHarrison: I don\u2019t recall if that was the one or not, Your Honor.\nA. If that\u2019s the one, I pleaded guilty to it because there was a bunch of gentlemen there; and the lawyer said . . .\nCourt: Sustained. Gentlemen, I\u2019m not permitting either State or the defendant to go into long explanations of the offenses. It\u2019s right to ask about what they were; but the circumstances of each case is not material here.\nException No. 13\nQ. I\u2019ll ask you if you entered a plea of guilty to that or if you were convicted by the Court?\nA. I pleaded guilty to it, sir.\u201d\nIn his third assignment of error, based upon exceptions 9 through 13, defendant contends that the court erred in not allowing him to explain the prior convictions he admitted on cross-examination. While a witness is entitled to explain on cross-examination or on redirect examination any convictions he has admitted, Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, \u00a7 112, the trial court is allowed considerable discretion in limiting such explanations. State v. Sanders, 276 N.C. 598, 174 S.E. 2d 487 (1970); State v. White, 271 N.C. 391, 156 S.E. 2d 721 (1967).\nIn the present case we find no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court in its rulings challenged by these exceptions. We do not conceive how the defendant might have benefited by being allowed to further pursue the matter. Defendant has failed to show he was prejudiced in any way\u2018by the court\u2019s rulings. This assignment of error is not sustained.\nBased upon several exceptions the defendant contends that the court in its charge to the jury expressed an opinion on the evidence in violation of G.S. 1-180. We have carefully examined each exception upon which this assignment of error is based and find them to be without merit. When the charge is considered contextually as a whole, it is, in our opinion, free from prejudicial error.\nFinally defendant argues the court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion \u201cthat the verdict of the jury be set aside and that a mistrial be declared.\u201d The record indicates that defendant based his motion on the statement of the district attorney in his argument to the jury \u201cthat the defendant was in possession of property which he, the defendant, must have or in some way stolen.\u201d\nThis assignment of error has no merit. Upon objection, and at the request of the defendant, the court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks of the district attorney with respect to the stolen goods, for the defendant could have come into pos session of the goods lawfully. We hold the court properly instructed the jury with respect to the improper argument of the district attorney.\nWe hold the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Britt and Martin concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDRICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney Guy A. Hamlin for the State.", "Turner & Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DON CHANDLER\nNo. 764SC307\n(Filed 15 September 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 127\u2014 arrest of judgment \u2014 resisting two officers \u2014 different verdicts\nDefendant was not entitled to have judgment arrested on the ground that the jury could not legally find him guilty of resisting an officer when it found him not guilty of resisting a second officer since the jury\u2019s verdict in either case was not dependent upon its verdict in the other case.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99\u2014 instructions to confine answer to question asked \u2014 no expression of opinion\nThe trial judge did not express an opinion when, on three separate occasions during the trial, he instructed defendant and his witness to confine their response to the question asked.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014 admission of prior crimes \u2014 opportunity to explain\nDefendant failed to show he was prejudiced by the court\u2019s refusal to allow defendant to explain fully the prior convictions which he admitted on cross-examination.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 102, 128\u2014 jury argument by district attorney \u2014 motion for mistrial\nIn a prosecution for resisting a law officer, the trial court did not err in the denial of defendant\u2019s motion for a mistrial because of the district attorney\u2019s jury argument that \u201cthe defendant was in possession of property which he, the defendant, must have or in some way stolen\u201d where the court instructed the jury to disregard the district attorney\u2019s remark about stolen goods.\nAppeal by defendant from James, Judge. Judgment entered 29 October 1975 in Superior Court, Onslow County. Heard in Court of Appeals 26 August 1976.\nCriminal prosecution on a warrant, proper in form, charging that defendant Don Chandler \u201cdid unlawfully, wilfully, . . . resist Benny Simms [sic], a public officer holding the office of Deputy Sheriff of Onslow County, N. C. by kicking officer 2 times in the stomach. At the time, such officer was attempting to discharge a duty of his office, to wit: arrest Don Chandler for resisting arrest.\u201d\nThe record before us discloses that defendant was also charged with resisting Deputy Sheriff Sammy Jarman in his attempt to serve a warrant to search for stolen goods. Defendant was convicted in district court on both charges of resisting an officer. He appealed both cases to superior court where they were consolidated for trial de novo.\nUpon the defendant\u2019s pleas of not guilty in both cases, the State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nOn 23 June 1975 Sims and Jarman, Deputy Sheriffs, went to defendant\u2019s mobile home at 11:30 p.m. to serve a search warrant to search for stolen property. Accompanying the officers was one Youngblood, the owner of the alleged stolen property. Defendant generally cooperated with the officer until Jarman requested that Youngblood be allowed to come out to a utility shed in defendant\u2019s backyard to identify what Jarman believed to be some of the stolen property. To this request defendant replied. \u201cHell, no; Youngblood\u2019s not looking at anything I have.\u201d Jarman informed the defendant that notwithstanding his objection Youngblood must be allowed to examine the property. State ABC Officer Robert Warlick and SBI Agent Steve Woodall, who had just arrived on the scene, brought Young-blood out to the utility shed.\nWhen Jarman opened the door to the shed, defendant pushed him back and slammed the door so Youngblood could not see inside. Jarman said, \u201cYou\u2019re under arrest for interfering with an officer,\u201d and again opened the door, but defendant again pushed him back and closed the door. Jarman struck at defendant with his blackjack but missed. Defendant then went into a \u201ckarate stance.\u201d Sims then attempted to handcuff defendant but when he approached him, defendant kicked Sims twice in the stomach and chest. Jarman then hit defendant with his blackjack and the two officers attempted to handcuff him, but he broke away and ran toward his trailer vowing to get his gun and kill them. Sims pursued and caught defendant on the front porch where they struggled until Jarman came to Sims\u2019 aid by hitting defendant with his blackjack. The officers then subdued and handcuffed the defendant.\nDefendant offered evidence tending to show the following:\nWhen Jarman requested that Youngblood examine the property, he objected because the hour was late and he had work to perform early the next morning. He also objected because Youngblood was not a public officer and he felt that the search warrant did not give a private cittizen the authority to come onto his property. He did inform the officers, however, that he was willing for them to take the property with them.\nWhen Jarman opened the door to the shed to let Young-blood inside, he closed it, and then Jarman struck him on the head with his blackjack, but at no time did Jarman tell him that he was under arrest. Defendant\u2019s wife placed herself between defendant and Jarman and Jarman knocked her to the ground. Defendant picked her up, and then Sims grabbed his arm and swung him around. Jarman struck him again with his black-j ack, but defendant did not fight back. He did say that he would get his gun and run them off his property, even though he knew he had no gun. He ran around to the front of the mobile home where he collided with Sims. Jarman then came up and struck him over the eye with his blackjack resulting in a cut that required twelve stitches.\nThe jury acquitted the defendant of the charge of resisting Jarman in his attempt to serve a search warrant, but convicted him of the charge of resisting Sims. From a judgment imposing a jail sentence of six months, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney Guy A. Hamlin for the State.\nTurner & Harrison, by Fred W. Harrison for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0646-01", "first_page_order": 674, "last_page_order": 680 }