{ "id": 8552616, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH GRAY WELLS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wells", "decision_date": "1976-12-15", "docket_number": "No. 767SC513", "first_page": "736", "last_page": "739", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 N.C. App. 736" } ], "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": "84 S.E. 2d 251", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 24", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8600285 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0024-01" ] }, { "cite": "207 S.E. 2d 763", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568706, 8568679, 8568744, 8568846, 8568786 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0665-02", "/nc/285/0665-01", "/nc/285/0665-03", "/nc/285/0665-05", "/nc/285/0665-04" ] }, { "cite": "205 S.E. 2d 602", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "21 N.C. App. 602", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8557082 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/21/0602-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S.E. 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 759", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617083 ], "year": 1935, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0759-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 L.Ed. 2d 252", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 253", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "400 U.S. 946", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12104866, 12105030, 12104936, 12105002, 12105261, 12105230, 12104976, 12105170, 12105043, 12104916, 12105202, 12104889, 12104954 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/400/0946-01", "/us/400/0946-08", "/us/400/0946-04", "/us/400/0946-07", "/us/400/0946-13", "/us/400/0946-12", "/us/400/0946-06", "/us/400/0946-10", "/us/400/0946-09", "/us/400/0946-03", "/us/400/0946-11", "/us/400/0946-02", "/us/400/0946-05" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 534", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 714", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563418 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0714-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 424, "char_count": 6756, "ocr_confidence": 0.668, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.676830387708631e-08, "percentile": 0.3567063176270122 }, "sha256": "296f79c06a2c15b38752eae8d88288bcc1b63ebb398a3863f7c8ba91b7a7099e", "simhash": "1:e4f8117d5be6b475", "word_count": 1142 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:26.493722+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH GRAY WELLS" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HEDKICK, Judge.\nAt trial the minor witness, in the presence of the jury, was allowed to whisper a portion of her testimony, which was of a very personal nature, to the court reporter, who in turn read the testimony to the jury. This procedure, which was utilized for the answers to three questions, provides the basis for defendant\u2019s first three exceptions. Defendant neither objected to this procedure nor the evidence obtained by it nor moved to strike the child\u2019s testimony. Therefore, these exceptions present no question for review, and the assignment of error based thereon is not sustained. State v. Blackwell, 276 N.C. 714, 174 S.E. 2d 534 (1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946, 91 S.Ct. 253, 27 L.Ed. 2d 252 (1970).\nBy his second assignment of error defendant contends the court erred in allowing the child\u2019s grandmother to testify that the child told her that the defendant \u201chad messed with her before.\u201d Prior to the testimony challenged by this exception, the child had testified, without objection, that she told her grandmother the defendant had molested her on numerous other occasions. The trial judge allowed the grandmother\u2019s testimony into evidence as corroborative of the child\u2019s prior testimony, and in his charge instructed the jury that the challenged evidence should be considered only for the purpose of corroborating the child\u2019s testimony at trial, if it did. The challenged testimony was admissible. Webster v. Trust Co., 208 N.C. 759, 182 S.E. 333 (1935); State v. Feimster, 21 N.C. App. 602, 205 S.E. 2d 602 (1974), cert. denied, 285 N.C. 665, 207 S.E. 2d 763 (1974). This assignment of error has no merit.\nOn direct examination Hilda Wells, defendant\u2019s ex-wife, testified in substance that defendant had never done anything that would indicate a propensity to commit the crime with which he was charged. On rebuttal Maria Cook was asked, over defendant\u2019s objection, to relate a conversation she had with Hilda Wells. The records reveals the following:\n\u201cQ. What did she tell ya\u2019ll?\nObjection by Mr. Knox. Overruled.\n[A.] She was wondering what she was going to tell her boys. She said, well, she was very upset and I might have asked her a few questions, but she really didn\u2019t want to talk about it too much she was really, she was just very upset. She did say, she kept saying, \u2018Oh, my God, oh my God, I thought he had outgrown that.'\u2019 When I asked her what she meant by outgrown what\u2014\nObjection by Mr. Knox. Overruled.\nA. She said that she had loved Pee Wee for a lot of years, ten or fifteen years and that she had covered for him and protected him because of that problem, but that he had, she led me to believe that he had had his hands on other little girls but he had never gone so far as to mess with them internally like he did Jamie.\nException No. 7\u201d (Emphasis added).\nBy his fifth assignment of error defendant contends the trial court erred in not striking the answer quoted above because it \u201cwas based on conjecture and created an insinuation not based on fact which prejudiced the jury.\u201d This assignment of error has no merit. Clearly the State was entitled to ask the witness for purposes of impeachment if Hilda Wells had made prior statements inconsistent with her testimony at trial. Perkins v. Clarke, 241 N.C. 24, 84 S.E. 2d 251 (1954). Assuming arguendo that by testifying as to what Mrs. Wells had \u201cled her to believe,\u201d Mrs. Cook gave an inadmissible interpretation of her conversation with Mrs.' Wells, defendant cannot raise the alleged error on appeal because he did not object to the witness\u2019s answer or move to have it stricken from the record. State v. Blackwell, supra.\nWe hold that the defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nChief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "HEDKICK, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attomel General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Henry H. Burgwyn for the State.", "Howard A. Knox, Jr., for the defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ELIJAH GRAY WELLS\nNo. 767SC513\n(Filed 15 December 1976)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 162\u2014 permitting child to whisper testimony to court reporter \u2014 question not presented on appeal\nIn a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, the question of whether the court erred in permitting the child to whisper a portion of her testimony to the court reporter, who then read it to the jury, was not presented where defendant failed to object to the procedure and failed to object to or move to strike the child's testimony.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89 \u2014 testimony admissible for corroboration\nIn a prosecution for taking indecent liberties with a child, testimony by the child\u2019s grandmother that the child told her that defendant \u201chad messed with her before\u201d was properly admitted for the purpose of corroborating the child\u2019s testimony that she told her grandmother that defendant had molested her on numerous other occasions.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 89, 162 \u2014 impeachment testimony \u2014 conjecture \u2014 absence of objection\nThe State was entitled to ask a witness for purposes of impeachment whether defendant\u2019s witness had made prior statements inconsistent with her trial testimony, and defendant cannot complain on appeal about the witness\u2019s testimony as to what defendant\u2019s witness had \u201cled her to believe\u201d where defendant did not object to the witness\u2019s testimony or move to have it stricken from the record.\nAppeal by defendant from Tillery, Judge. Judgment entered 2 March 1976 in Superior Court, Edgecombe County. Heard in Court of Appeals 8 November 1976.\nThis is a criminal action, wherein the defendant, Elijah Gray Wells, was charged in an indictment, proper in form, with \u201ctaking indecent liberties\u201d with a child, a felony, in violation of G.S. 14-202.1. Upon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty the State offered evidence tending to show the following:\nThe female child in question, who was nine years old, lived with her grandmother in Louisburg, N. C. On 31 October 1975 she went to spend the week end with her mother and stepfather, the defendant, in Rocky Mount, N. C. During the early morning hours of 1 November 1975, while the child was sleeping on a mattress in the living room with her younger sister, the defendant made certain sexual advances by placing his hands on her private parts. No useful purpose will be served by further elaboration on the details of the incident.\nUpon returning to Louisburg the child was unusually quiet and nervous, and she became frightened at night. After a week or ten days had elapsed, she told her grandmother about the incident. She also told her grandmother that defendant had molested her on other occasions.\nDefendant offered evidence tending to show he did not molest the child.\nThe jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of five years, defendant appealed.\nAttomel General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Henry H. Burgwyn for the State.\nHoward A. Knox, Jr., for the defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0736-01", "first_page_order": 764, "last_page_order": 767 }