{
  "id": 8552340,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLIE HOWARD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Howard",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7715SC928",
  "first_page": "762",
  "last_page": "765",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "35 N.C. App. 762"
    }
  ],
  "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": "200 S.E. 2d 664",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "20 N.C. App. 74",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8549447
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/20/0074-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 513",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 617",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559688
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0617-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 577",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559611
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 239",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "283 N.C. 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8558855
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/283/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 227",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.C. 643",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8571921
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/279/0643-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 404,
    "char_count": 6717,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.895633362965747e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36900394578988965
    },
    "sha256": "ca76be6c9383c2c57898c0083b247f25ad763ae6d5cfcc8cfe996bb4f59aefa9",
    "simhash": "1:962cc04bf48b23fd",
    "word_count": 1109
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:24:32.681632+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLIE HOWARD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erroneously and prejudicially restricted his right of cross-examination. Specifically, he argues that the trial court improperly limited his opportunity to cross-examine and impeach State\u2019s witness Wilson by sustaining the State\u2019s objections to certain questions relative to Wilson\u2019s testimony at a previous hearing.\nOur courts have oft stated the rule that \u201cthe legitimate bounds of cross-examination are largely within the discretion of the trial judge, so that his ruling will not be held as prejudicial error absent a showing that the verdict was improperly influenced thereby.\u201d State v. Chance, 279 N.C. 643, 185 S.E. 2d 227 (1971). In the instant case, defense counsel\u2019s inquiries to Wilson relative to his previous testimony were unrestricted except for two instances in which the court sustained the State\u2019s objections apparently because of the form of the questions propounded. Without passing on the correctness of these rulings, we are of the opinion that no prejudicial error has been made to appear from the record. Not only does the record disclose that defense counsel was otherwise unrestricted in his cross-examination of Wilson, but it also fails to show what the answers would have been to the excluded questions. It is well established in this State that the sustaining of an objection will not be held prejudicial when the record does not show what the answer would have been had the objection not been sustained. State v. Felton, 283 N.C. 368, 196 S.E. 2d 239 (1973). This assignment is accordingly overruled.\nDefendant next assigns error to the trial court\u2019s denial of his timely motions to dismiss the charge. He contends that the State failed to produce substantial evidence on the issue of defendant\u2019s possession of heroin. This contention is without merit.\nDefendant dwells at length on Detective Wilson\u2019s testimony that he observed two pieces of paper fall from defendant\u2019s hands. It is defendant\u2019s argument that these two pieces of paper were the torn envelope containing marijuana and that there was no evidence linking defendant to a third piece of paper \u2014 an untorn envelope containing heroin. Defendant\u2019s argument is untenable. After observing defendant tear and drop the pieces of paper, Wilson immediately went to the spot where they fell and found the two envelopes, one of which was torn in two. It is simply unrealistic to maintain that an envelope containing heroin just happened to be lying in the same spot. The reasonable inference to be drawn from this evidence, considering it in the light most favorable to the State, is that defendant disposed of both the envelopes containing the drugs when he saw the officers. We overrule this assignment of error.\nIn the remaining assignments of error, defendant brings forward a number of exceptions to the court\u2019s charge to the jury. These we find to be without merit. The trial court did not err in failing to define \u201creasonable doubt\u201d in the absence of a request for the same from defendant. State v. Ingland, 278 N.C. 42, 178 S.E. 2d 577 (1971). Likewise, the trial court\u2019s failure to instruct on the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given particular evidence and the impeachment of a witness by prior inconsistent statements was not prejudicial error in light of defendant\u2019s failure to request specific instructions on such matters. See State v. Hunt, 283 N.C. 617, 197 S.E. 2d 513 (1973); State v. Nettles, 20 N.C. App. 74, 200 S.E. 2d 664 (1973). Finally, defendant has cited, and we can find, no authority for the proposition that a trial judge is required to instruct on his duty of impartiality. When the charge is considered contextually, and as a whole, we find it to be free from prejudicial error.\nIn defendant\u2019s trial, we find no prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.",
      "Leroy W. Upperman, Jr., for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CHARLIE HOWARD\nNo. 7715SC928\n(Filed 4 April 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 169.6\u2014 failure of record to show excluded testimony\nThe sustaining of an objection will not be held prejudicial when the record does not show what the answer of the witness would have been had the objection not been sustained.\n2. Narcotics \u00a7 4\u2014 possession of heroin \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for possession of heroin where it tended to show that an officer observed defendant tear something in two and then saw two pieces of paper fall from defendant\u2019s hands; the officer went to the spot where they fell and found two envelopes, one of which was torn in two; and the untorn envelope contained nine packets of heroin.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 112.1, 113.3\u2014 failure to request instructions\nIn the absence of a request for specific instructions, the trial court was not required to define reasonable doubt or to instruct on the credibility of witnesses, the weight to be given particular evidence or the impeachment of a witness by a prior inconsistent statement.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 111.1\u2014 judge\u2019s duty of impartiality \u2014 failure to instruct\nA trial judge is not required to instruct on his duty of impartiality.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Fountain, Judge. Judgment entered 24 February 1977 in Superior Court, ALAMANCE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 7 March 1978.\nDefendant was indicted for felonious possession of heroin with intent to sell. He entered a plea of not guilty.\nThe State presented evidence which tended to show that on 19 March 1976 the Burlington Police Department, acting pursuant to a tip, placed defendant under surveillance. Defendant was first observed in a parked automobile with another person on Rawhut Street. He emerged from the parked car and proceeded in the direction of Dudley Street where three or four men were standing in front of a cafe. As defendant approached these men, he turned and spotted the police officers who were tracking him. He immediately quickened his pace and headed into an alley. Detective Alvis Wilson followed defendant on foot and observed him tearing something in two. Wilson then saw two pieces of paper fall from defendant\u2019s hands. The pieces of paper turned out to be two envelopes, one torn in two. Upon analysis, the two envelopes were found to contain a small amount of marijuana and nine packets of heroin, respectively.\nThe defendant presented no evidence.\nThe case was submitted to the jury only on the lesser included offense of unlawful possession of heroin. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and defendant was sentenced to two (2) to three (3) years imprisonment. Defendant appealed to this Court.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.\nLeroy W. Upperman, Jr., for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0762-01",
  "first_page_order": 790,
  "last_page_order": 793
}
