{
  "id": 8548030,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODGER HAROLD GOODMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Goodman",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 7719SC317",
  "first_page": "221",
  "last_page": "223",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 221"
    }
  ],
  "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": 317,
    "char_count": 5561,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.816,
    "sha256": "252809d4b8d5b44504ce59618e97da1ade1bd81b38c6c272272a8579b74930fd",
    "simhash": "1:04ef6485c7cf0ea6",
    "word_count": 927
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Vaughn and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODGER HAROLD GOODMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK; Judge.\nBased on exceptions duly noted in the record the defendant first contends the court erred in allowing Charles Willis\u2019 wife to testify that she had a conversation with the defendant in the hall outside the courtroom during the trial wherein the defendant said he was going to \u201cplead innocence\u201d to protect himself, and that he still liked \u201cChuck\u201d and that he would not use any more against him than he had to. Defendant argues that this testimony was not relevant and its only purpose was to excite the prejudice of the jury against him. The testimony complained of merely reiterated the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty. When the defendant testified he did exactly what he told Mrs. Willis he was going to do. While we must say we do not understand why the state wanted to introduce the challenged testimony, we cannot say it was irrelevant. In any event its admission could not have been prejudicial to the defendant. Defendant\u2019s first assignment of error has no merit.\nBy assignments of error two, three and four the defendant contends the court erred in allowing Mrs. Willis, Bobby Wayne Nash arid Officer Glenn Sides to testify as to statements made to them by Charles Willis regarding the theft of the motorcycle and the receiving thereof. In each instance the court instructed the jury that it could consider the testimony only for the purpose of corroborating Charles Willis, if, in fact, the testimony did corroborate Willis. Defendant simply argues the challenged testimony was inadmissible hearsay because it did not corroborate Willis\u2019 testimony. We disagree. The challenged testimony was substantially the same as that given by Willis, and it was for the jury to say whether it corroborated Willis\u2019 testimony. These assignments of error have no merit.\nDefendant\u2019s fifth assignment of error is based on the court\u2019s denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit. The evidence was sufficient to require the submission of this case to the jury and to support the verdict.\nAssignments of error seven through twelve relate to the court\u2019s instructions to the jury. We have carefully examined each exception upon which these assignments of error are based and find them to be without merit.\nThe defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Vaughn and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK; Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney Daniel C. Oakley for the State.",
      "Robert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RODGER HAROLD GOODMAN\nNo. 7719SC317\n(Filed 5 October 1977)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 33.4\u2014 defendant\u2019s conversation outside courtroom \u2014evidence not prejudicial\nIn a prosecution for receiving a stolen motorcycle, defendant was not prejudiced where the trial court allowed the thief\u2019s wife to testify that she had a conversation with defendant in the hall outside the courtroom during trial wherein defendant said he was going to \u201cplead innocence\u201d to protect himself, and that he still liked the thief and that he would not use any more against him than he had to.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.2\u2014 corroborating evidence \u2014 admissibility\nIn a prosecution for receiving a stolen motorcycle, the trial court did not err in allowing witnesses to testify as to statements made to them by the thief regarding the theft of the motorcycle and the receiving thereof, since the court in each instance instructed the jury that it could consider the testimony only for the purpose of corroborating the thief, if in fact it did corroborate him.\nAppeal by defendant from Wood, Judge. Judgment entered 2 December 1976 in Superior Court, ROWAN County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September 1977.\nCriminal prosecution on a bill of indictment, proper in form, charging the defendant, Rodger Harold Goodman, with feloniously receiving a 1974 Honda 450 motorcycle which had been stolen by Charles Willis and Wayne Nash from Eva Trexler having a value of $1,250.00.\nUpon the defendant\u2019s plea of not guilty, the state offered evidence tending to show the following:\nOn 28 July 1976 Eva Trexler\u2019s 1974 Honda 450 motorcycle having a value of $1,250.00 was stolen from her residence. Several days before the motorcycle was stolen Charles Willis had a conversation with defendant during which defendant stated that he would buy a Honda 350 from Willis even if defendant knew the motorcycle was hot. Pursuant to this conversation Charles Willis and Wayne Nash stole the Trexler motorcycle on 28 July 1976. Willis drove the motorcycle to defendant\u2019s residence and defendant told Willis to stash the motorcycle for several days until he could get some money. Willis then hid the motorcycle in the woods. A couple of days later, under instructions from defendant, Willis drov\u00e9 the motorcycle to defendant\u2019s mother\u2019s house and parked the motorcycle in the basement of the house. The next day defendant gave Willis a check for $50 with the notation \u201cfor loan on a motorcycle.\u201d Several days later defendant told Willis that the law had been looking for the motorcycle and asked Willis to get rid of it. Willis then took the motorcycle to High Rock Dam and pushed it into the water.\nDefendant offered evidence tending to show that Charles Willis came to him to borrow some money, that he loaned Willis $50 and took the motorcycle as collateral, that he later stopped payment on the check he gave to Willis, that he returned the motorcycle to Willis and that he was not involved in either the theft or the receiving of the motorcycle.\nThe defendant was found guilty as charged, and from a judgment imposing a prison sentence of 4 years, he appealed.\nAttorney General Edmisten by Assistant Attorney Daniel C. Oakley for the State.\nRobert M. Davis for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0221-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 251
}