{
  "id": 8552089,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KEYS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Keys",
  "decision_date": "1977-12-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 772SC567",
  "first_page": "739",
  "last_page": "741",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 N.C. App. 739"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 S.E. 551",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.C. 459",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650803
      ],
      "year": 1887,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/97/0459-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 S.E. 2d 386",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 N.C. App. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8550995,
        8550959
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/9/0420-02",
        "/nc-app/9/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 N.C. App. 749",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8555913
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/19/0749-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "159 S.E. 2d 22",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 651",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574217
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0651-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 N.C. 504",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8696928
      ],
      "year": 1843,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/25/0504-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "92 S.E. 145",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1917,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 N.C. 427",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11270313
      ],
      "year": 1917,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/173/0427-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 4875,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.839,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2059326624834112
    },
    "sha256": "8190cb22827b73ddf0d2fe4b7ac601ab508355cfe4b58750ed2f1ccc081d7ceb",
    "simhash": "1:44c242cdfe372ef9",
    "word_count": 834
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:28:15.830309+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Britt and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KEYS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant offered his own version of the events leading to his cashing the check at Barber\u2019s Gulf Service. He testified that he got the check from Mary Battle, his wife\u2019s cousin. When he began to explain what she had told him in connection with the transaction, the following exchange took place.\n\u201cQ. You came out . . .\nA. She [Mary Battle] was sitting in the car and she asked me . . .\nQ. Sitting in whose car?\nA. Sitting in my car and asked me . . .\nMr. Griffin: Objection.\nCOURT: Don\u2019t tell what she said.\nA. That\u2019s the only way I can explain, your Honor.\nCOURT: Well you can\u2019t tell what she said.\nException No. 3\nI got the check from her and I gave her money for it, $83.30. The check was endorsed with Leona Battle\u2019s name on the back of it.\nQ. Did you ask Mary Battle what she was doing with Leona Battle\u2019s check?\nMr. Griffin: Objection.\nCOURT: Sustained.\u201d\nThe court declined defendant\u2019s request that the answers be put in the record. On cross-examination, it appeared that among other things defendant wished to testify that he understood that Mary was Leona\u2019s niece and that she had Leona\u2019s permission to get the check cashed.\nDefendant correctly contends that the judge erred when he excluded the testimony. The exclusion was apparently based on the notion that the question called for \u201chearsay\u201d testimony. Evidence is \u201chearsay\u201d when its probative force depends upon the competency and credibility of some person other than the witness by whom it is sought to produce it. Chandler v. Jones, 173 N.C. 427, 92 S.E. 145 (1917). The testimony was not offered to establish the truth of what Mary Battle told the witness. It was only offered to prove, by defendant\u2019s testimony, that Mary Battle had made the declaration. The credibility of defendant and not of Mary Battle was before the jury, and he should have been allowed to answer the question. State v. Griffis, 25 N.C. 504 (1843). The excluded testimony was highly relevant to the case being tried. Knowledge that the endorsement was forged is an essential element of the offense of uttering an instrument with a forged or false endorsement. State v. Greenlee, 272 N.C. 651, 159 S.E. 2d 22 (1968); State v. Jackson, 19 N.C. App. 749, 200 S.E. 2d 199 (1973); State v. Wyatt, 9 N.C. App. 420, 176 S.E. 2d 386 (1970).\nIf the jury believed defendant\u2019s testimony, they could have found that he came by the check honestly and uttered it without knowing that it carried a forged endorsement. A similar set of circumstances was presented in State v. Bethel, 97 N.C. 459, 1 S.E. 551 (1887). In that case, Bethel was being tried for receiving stolen goods, a peck of chestnuts. The court excluded testimony from Bethel that one Harris told defendant that the chestnuts belonged to Harris and his partner Branch and that the pair wanted Bethel to sell the chestnuts for them. Justice Merrimon, for the Court, held that how defendant came by the chestnuts was a material inquiry. The Court held that defendant should have been able to relate to the jury that defendant contended Harris told him. The Court added, \u201cIt may be that the suggested conversation was feigned and the proposed evidence false; nevertheless, it was evidence to go to and be weighed by the jury.\u201d\nIn the present case, the jury may not have believed defendant\u2019s testimony. He was, however, entitled to have the jury consider it.\nFor the reasons stated, defendant is awarded a new trial.\nNew trial.\nJudges Britt and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert W. Newsom III, for the State.",
      "Carter, Archie & Grimes, by Samuel G. Grimes, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ANDREW KEYS\nNo. 772SC567\n(Filed 21 December 1977)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 73.2; Forgery \u00a7 2\u2014 uttering check with forged endorsement\u2014 knowledge that endorsement forged \u2014 evidence improperly excluded\nIn a prosecution for uttering a check with a forged endorsement, the trial court erred in refusing to allow defendant to testify as to what a third person told him when she gave him the check, since the evidence was not hearsay but was relevant to the issue of defendant\u2019s knowledge that the endorsement on the check was forged.\nAppeal by defendant from Crissman, Judge. Judgment entered 20 April 1977 in Superior Court, BEAUFORT County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 15 November 1977.\nDefendant was indicted for uttering a check with a forged endorsement. Evidence showed that on 3 or 4 May 1976, Mrs. Leona Battle\u2019s social security check disappeared from her purse. Defendant had access to the purse. On 4 May 1976, defendant cashed the check at Barber\u2019s Gulf Service. At that time the check was endorsed with Leona Battle\u2019s name and defendant added his own. Defendant testified that he had cashed the check for Mary Battle, a relative of his wife.\nDefendant was found guilty as charged. He was sentenced to four to six years in prison.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Robert W. Newsom III, for the State.\nCarter, Archie & Grimes, by Samuel G. Grimes, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0739-01",
  "first_page_order": 767,
  "last_page_order": 769
}