{
  "id": 8551242,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH HOSKINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Hoskins",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 777SC770",
  "first_page": "92",
  "last_page": "98",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 N.C. App. 92"
    }
  ],
  "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": "83 S.E. 2d 482",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.C. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8605810
      ],
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/240/0595-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S.E. 2d 359",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 N.C. 223",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8567692
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/289/0223-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 612",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 524",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573948
      ],
      "year": 1968,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0524-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S.E. 2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "260 N.C. 186",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573591
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/260/0186-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 S.E. 2d 531",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621224
      ],
      "year": 1946,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 283",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "282 N.C. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564078
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/282/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "432 U.S. 98",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6177400
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/432/0098-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 N.W. 2d 351",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.W.2d",
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "225 Minn. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Minn.",
      "case_ids": [
        380285
      ],
      "year": 1947,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/minn/225/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "17 S.Ct. 994",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1896,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 L.Ed. 1182",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed.",
      "year": 1896,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "164 U.S. 703",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "year": 1896,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 P. 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.",
      "year": 1890,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "15 Colo. 270",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        2498907
      ],
      "year": 1890,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/15/0270-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E. 2d 423",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 41",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8559866
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0041-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "180 S.E. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 N.C. 458",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8560650
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/278/0458-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "150 S.E. 2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "268 N.C. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561746
      ],
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/268/0320-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 678,
    "char_count": 14314,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.804,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.245172515742086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7805819953209627
    },
    "sha256": "21f91ab5be6508440050f7aceaf41d1c129242309e434a666243d75a4091e9d2",
    "simhash": "1:8ec0e62a775e19d5",
    "word_count": 2396
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:41.791978+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Morris and Clark concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH HOSKINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MITCHELL, Judge.\nDefendant first assigns as error the action of the trial court in admonishing both the prosecutor and defense counsel during voir dire for their lack of cooperation with each other and the court. Out of the presence of the jury, the trial court specifically warned both of them that, upon future bantering or failure to abide by the court\u2019s instructions, either or both would be held in contempt and jailed. The trial court also indicated that, if necessary, a mistrial would be declared.\nEvery person charged with a crime has a right to trial before an impartial judge and an unprejudiced jury. G.S. 1-180. State v. Belk, 268 N.C. 320, 150 S.E. 2d 481 (1966). Any intimidation or expression of opinion by the trial court which prejudices the jury against the accused is ground for a new trial State v. Frazier, 278 N.C. 458, 180 S.E. 2d 128 (1971). Here, however, the remarks of the trial court were clearly addressed to both the district attorney and defendant\u2019s counsel for purposes of insuring an orderly trial. They did not, therefore, constitute error. State v. Arnold, 284 N.C. 41, 199 S.E. 2d 423 (1973).\nAdditionally, the remarks to counsel were made out of the presence of the jury. Both G.S. 1-180 and G.S. 15A-1232, which will replace G.S. 1-180 on 1 July 1978, prohibit the expression of an opinion by the trial court to the jury. Where, as here, there is no reason to believe that jurors were informed of the fact that counsel had been chastised or rebuked by the trial court, no error was committed. Hill v. Corcoran, 15 Colo. 270, 25 P. 171 (1890), aff\u2019d., 164 U.S. 703, 41 L.Ed. 1182, 17 S.Ct. 994 (1896); Ryan v. City of Crookston, 225 Minn. 129, 30 N.W. 2d 351 (1947).\nThe defendant also contends the trial court impermissibly expressed an opinion and invaded the province of the jury by commenting on the testimony of Detective Phil Houchens. The detective testified on voir dire for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of Harriett Anderson concerning an identification by her of the defendant during a photographic lineup. At one point, however, it was obvious that his testimony would vary from Harriett Anderson\u2019s. She had stated that she did not remember giving this particular detective a description of the defendant. Detective Houchens testified that: \u201cIf I am not mistaken, I talked to her previously to this and she had given me a description. I don\u2019t want to dispute what she said, but I believe I talked to her before.\u201d The detective then outlined a description of the robber given him by the witness.\nCounsel for the defendant then asked: \u201cWhy don\u2019t you want to dispute her word, Mr. Houchens?\u201d The State\u2019s objection to the question was sustained. Counsel for the defendant then stated: \u201cIf your Honor please, I would like to be heard. He said, T don\u2019t want to dispute her word.\u2019 \u201d To this the trial court responded: \u201cMr. Farris, that was just an expression. And your question is argumentative.\u201d\nThe defendant contends this statement by the trial court was an impermissible expression of opinion and invaded the province of the jury. This contention is without merit, as it was the province of the trial court, not the jury, to determine preliminary questions of fact upon which the admissibility of the witness\u2019 testimony depended. 12 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Trial, \u00a7 18.1, p. 387. In makng its findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the admissibility of evidence, a trial court must necessarily express an opinion on the evidence presented on voir dire. The statement by the trial court was a proper exercise of its duty as the finder of fact and of its duty to supervise and control the conduct of the trial.\nThe defendant next assigns as error the refusal of the trial court to require Detective Houchens to read into the record a \u201cWilson Police Department Complaint and Investigation Report.\u201d Rather than have the officer read the report, which the defendant concedes was a public record of a type frequently used by local newspapers to prepare news articles, the court ordered a copy of the report itself placed in the record on appeal if the defendant wished. We find the action of the trial court granted the substance of the defendant\u2019s motion and was not error.\nThe defendant seems to contend that he was surprised to his prejudice by the report. He contends that, as the report contained a description of the robber by a witness never called by the State, the report was material to his defense and was improperly denied him. The record indicates, however, that the report was at all times available to the defendant at the police department as a matter of public record. Additionally the defendant made no attempt to discover this report, as was his right pursuant to G.S. 15A-902 and 903. The failure to seek discovery pursuant to the terms of G.S. 15A-902 and 903 constituted a waiver of the right to discovery pursuant to those statutes.\nThe defendant next assigns as error the failure of the trial court to exclude the in-court identification of the defendant by the witness Harriett Anderson. He contends that her identification was tainted by a prior photographic identification. This assignment is without merit.\nThe record reveals that the witness testified that she had worked in the store approximately two years, and during that time the defendant was an occasional customer. She observed him for approximately five minutes during a midday robbery with additional illumination provided by fluorescent lighting. She testified that her in-court identification before the jury was based upon her observation of the defendant at the time of the robbery.\nBoth Detective Houchens and the witness Anderson testified on voir dire that, after the robbery and before trial, she was shown six black and white photographs uniform in size and containing likenesses of males of the defendant\u2019s race. From this group she picked out the defendant\u2019s photograph and indicated that he was the man who had robbed her. Both Anderson and Houchens testified that no suggestion had been made to her as to which photograph to pick or that a photograph of the robber was, in fact, included in the group of photographs.\nFrom this evidence, the trial court found the facts to be \u201cas testified to\u201d by the officer and Mrs. Anderson. Based on those findings the trial court concluded that Mrs. Anderson\u2019s identification was not the result of any suggestive procedure utilized by law enforcement officers and was not tainted in any way. The trial court held the in-court identification of the defendant by Mrs. Anderson to be proper and allowed it into evidence. Although we do not encourage such brevity in the trial court\u2019s findings of facts, they were adequate to support its conclusions and were completely supported by the evidence. This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe note that the trial court, after making its findings and conclusions as to the admissibility of the in-court identification of the defendant, permitted Mrs. Anderson to testify before the jury as to her prior identification of the defendant\u2019s photograph. The trial court had not, however, made findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the propriety of the out-of-court identification of the defendant\u2019s photograph. Instead, the court merely determined that the in-court identification was not the result of any suggestive procedure.\nAssuming arguendo that the identification of the defendant\u2019s picture in the photographic lineup was unnecessarily suggestive, the admission of Mrs. Anderson\u2019s testimony concerning that identification would not, under the totality of the circumstances, require a new trial in this case. Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 53 L.Ed. 2d 140, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (1977); State v. Knight, 282 N.C. 220, 192 S.E. 2d 283 (1972). In any event, it is clear that the photographic identification was not so suggestive as to give rise to the likelihood of irreparable misidentification, and we find no prejudicial error.\nDefendant also assigns as error the failure of the trial court to exclude the testimony of Detective Houchens\u2019 offered to corroborate the testimony of Mrs. Anderson. This contention is based upon minor variations in the testimony of the two witnesses as to the date of one of their conversations. The defendant argues that this variation is fatal, and that the detective\u2019s testimony was inadmissible. We do not agree, as such slight variations between the testimony of the witness to be corroborated and the testimony of the corroborating witness will not render the latter inadmissible. State v. Walker, 226 N.C. 458, 38 S.E. 2d 531 (1946). Such variations in testimony affect only the credibility to be given the evidence by the jury. State v. Brooks, 260 N.C. 186, 132 S.E. 2d 354 (1963).\nThe defendant also assigns as error the overruling of his motion for a new trial based upon statements by the district attorney during arguments to the jury. The trial court in its discretion controls the arguments of counsel, and the court\u2019s rulings will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion. State v. Maynor, 272 N.C. 524, 158 S.E. 2d 612 (1968). Further, appellate courts do not-ordinarily interfere with the trial court\u2019s control of jury arguments, unless the impropriety of counsel\u2019s remarks is extreme and is clearly calculated to prejudice the jury in its deliberations. We are unable to make any such determination here, as both the arguments of counsel for the defendant and of the district attorney are omitted from the record. When a portion of the argument of either counsel is omitted from the record on appeal, the arguments must be presumed proper. See State v. Taylor, 289 N.C. 223, 221 S.E. 2d 359 (1976); State v. Dew, 240 N.C. 595, 83 S.E. 2d 482 (1954); 1 Strong, N.C. Index 3d, Appeal and Error, \u00a7 42.2, pp. 293-4. This assignment of error is overruled.\nThe defendant has presented other assignments of error and contentions. We have reviewed them carefully and find them each to be without merit.\nThe defendant had a fair trial free from prejudicial error, and we find\nNo error.\nJudges Morris and Clark concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MITCHELL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten and Associate Attorney Robert W. Newsom III for the State.",
      "Farris, Thomas & Farris, P.A., by Robert A. Farris, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. KENNETH HOSKINS\nNo. 777SC770\n(Filed 18 April 1978)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 99.5\u2014 court\u2019s admonition to counsel \u2014 no error\nDefendant was not prejudiced where the trial court admonished both the prosecutor and defense counsel in the absence of the jury for their lack of cooperation with each other and the court.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99.6\u2014 trial judge\u2019s remark \u2014 no expression of opinion\nThe trial judge did not express an opinion in violation of G.S. 1-180 and invade the province of the jury when one witness testified on voir dire that he did not want to dispute the word of another witness, defense counsel asked him why, and the judge responded, \u201cthat was just an expression. And your question is argumentative.\u201d\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 80.2\u2014 police complaint and investigation report \u2014 testimony properly admitted \u2014 discovery available\nThe trial court did not err in refusing to require a police detective to read into the record a police department complaint and investigation report, since the court ordered a copy of the report itself placed in the record on appeal if the defendant wished; moreover, defendant\u2019s contention that he was surprised to his prejudice by the report is without merit, since the report was at all times available to him at the police department and since defendant made no attempt to discover the report, as was his right pursuant to G.S. 15A-902 and 903.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 66.16\u2014 pretrial photographic identification \u2014 in-court identification based on observation at crime scene\nThe trial court did not err in allowing the victim of an armed robbery to make an in-court identification of defendant where evidence was sufficient to support the court\u2019s finding that the identification was based on the victim\u2019s observation of defendant at the crime scene and was not tainted by a proper pretrial photographic identification procedure.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 89.5\u2014 corroborating testimony \u2014slight variations\nSlight variations between the testimony of a witness to be corroborated and the testimony of the corroborating witness will not render the latter inadmissible.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 102.2, 168\u2014 jury arguments \u2014 review on appeal\nThe trial court in its discretion controls the arguments of counsel, and the court\u2019s rulings will not be disturbed absent a gross abuse of discretion; moreover, when a portion of the argument of either counsel is omitted from the record on appeal, the arguments must be presumed proper.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Smith (Donald LJ, Judge. Judgment entered 6 May 1977 in Superior Court, WILSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 19 January 1978.\nDefendant was indicted and tried for robbery with a firearm. Upon his plea of not guilty, the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged. From judgment sentencing him to imprisonment as a committed youthful offender for a period of twelve years, the defendant appeals.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that, at 11:00 a.m. on 17 November 1976, Harriett Anderson was working alone in Dawson\u2019s Peanut Shop in Wilson, North Carolina. She was putting up stock when the defendant walked into the store. She recognized him as having been in the store \u201coff and on\u201d throughout the two years of her employment there, although she did not know his name. When asked what he wanted, the defendant pulled a pistol and commanded Harriett Anderson to give him the money from the store. She gave the defendant all of the money in the cash register and asked him not to harm her. The defendant was in the store for a total of approximately five minutes. Immediately following the robbery, the police were called. The witness, Harriett Anderson, gave a description of the robber to the police at that time.\nThe defendant\u2019s evidence was in the nature of alibi testimony tending to show that he was with his girl friend at the time of the robbery and was not present in the store. The defendant\u2019s evidence also tended to show that he had been convicted of only one minor violation of law.\nOther relevant facts are hereinafter set forth.\nAttorney General Edmisten and Associate Attorney Robert W. Newsom III for the State.\nFarris, Thomas & Farris, P.A., by Robert A. Farris, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0092-01",
  "first_page_order": 120,
  "last_page_order": 126
}
