{
  "id": 8555862,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESTER ALLEN CROUCH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crouch",
  "decision_date": "1979-09-04",
  "docket_number": "No. 7925SC172",
  "first_page": "729",
  "last_page": "730",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 N.C. App. 729"
    }
  ],
  "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": "255 S.E. 2d 192",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "41 N.C. App. 612",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8551188
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/41/0612-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 S.E. 2d 73",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "32 N.C. App. 595",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8552626
      ],
      "year": 1977,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/32/0595-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2613,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.059735594408584e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37470041689689243
    },
    "sha256": "e537594be02c5c27e445d8b4c52a949f8e79934ad63aeb88b369dc1e11cdcfc5",
    "simhash": "1:4af990267d6784c2",
    "word_count": 405
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:00:09.609845+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge PARKER concurs.",
      "Judge MITCHELL concurred in the result."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESTER ALLEN CROUCH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge.\nDefendant was convicted of operating an automobile while under the influence of intoxicating liquors, third offense, and sentence was imposed. Defendant appealed.\nDefendant contends the court erred in allowing the state to cross-examine him concerning prior convictions of driving under the influence of intoxicants when he had stipulated for the purpose of trial that he had been so previously convicted. N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-928. The evidence sought by the cross-examination of defendant was for impeachment purposes and not as substantive evidence of an element of the offense charged. Such evidence was held competent in State v. Guinn, 32 N.C. App. 595, 233 S.E. 2d 73 (1977). Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant next contends he was entrapped. The evidence does not support this contention. The trial judge submitted the issue of entrapment to the jury and by its verdict the question was resolved against defendant.\nDefendant received a fair trial, free of prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudge PARKER concurs.\nJudge MITCHELL concurred in the result.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MARTIN (Harry C.), Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray and Deputy Attorney General William W. Melvin, for the State.",
      "Ingle and Joyner, by John D. Ingle, for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. LESTER ALLEN CROUCH\nNo. 7925SC172\n(Filed 4 September 1979)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 34.4, 86.2\u2014 prior convictions of drunk driving \u2014 stipulation \u2014 cross-examination for impeachment proper\nIn a prosecution for driving under the influence, third offense, the trial court did not err in allowing the State to cross-examine defendant concerning his prior convictions of driving under the influence, though defendant had stipulated for the purpose of trial that he had been so previously convicted, since the evidence sought by defendant\u2019s cross-examination was for impeachment purposes and was therefore competent.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 7\u2014 entrapment \u2014insufficiency of evidence\nIn a prosecution for driving under the influence, third offense, evidence was insufficient to support defendant\u2019s contention that he was entrapped.\nJudge Mitchell concurred in the result.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Browning, Judge. Judgment entered 4 October 1978 in Superior Court, CATAWBA County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 May 1979.\nThe decision of this Court dismissing defendant\u2019s appeal for failing to comply with the Rules of Appellate Procedure (41 N.C. App. 612, 255 S.E. 2d 192 (1979)) was vacated by order of the Supreme Court 31 July 1979, and the case was remanded to this Court for further consideration on the merits.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General William B. Ray and Deputy Attorney General William W. Melvin, for the State.\nIngle and Joyner, by John D. Ingle, for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0729-01",
  "first_page_order": 757,
  "last_page_order": 758
}