{ "id": 8548371, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MITCHELL A. PARKER", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Parker", "decision_date": "1980-02-19", "docket_number": "No. 7916SC625", "first_page": "276", "last_page": "280", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "45 N.C. App. 276" } ], "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": "252 S.E. 2d 535", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 N.C. App. 72", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548892 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "79" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/40/0072-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 S.E. 2d 578", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565031 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0113-01" ] }, { "cite": "196 S.E. 2d 697", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "698" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 520", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559299 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "523" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0520-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 2d 93", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "97" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 665", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573255 ], "year": 1972, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "672" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0665-01" ] }, { "cite": "192 S.E. 2d 569", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 157", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563853 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0157-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 241", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "13 N.C. App. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549801 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/13/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "112" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628176 ], "year": 1936, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 S.E. 2d 826", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "222 N.C. 33", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628263 ], "year": 1942, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0033-01" ] }, { "cite": "168 S.E. 2d 39", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 342", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8558758 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0342-01" ] }, { "cite": "172 S.E. 2d 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561802 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "252 S.E. 2d 720", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "296 N.C. 623", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569846 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/296/0623-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 274", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 617", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563746, 8563876, 8563918, 8563770, 8563838 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0617-01", "/nc/284/0617-04", "/nc/284/0617-05", "/nc/284/0617-02", "/nc/284/0617-03" ] }, { "cite": "200 S.E. 2d 666", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "20 N.C. App. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8549393 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/20/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "96 S.Ct. 3211", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1210", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "428 U.S. 904", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6184738, 6185094, 6184392, 6185357, 6183598, 6183984, 6185553, 6184594, 6184179, 6183446, 6184922, 6183803 ], "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/428/0904-08", "/us/428/0904-10", "/us/428/0904-06", "/us/428/0904-11", "/us/428/0904-02", "/us/428/0904-04", "/us/428/0904-12", "/us/428/0904-07", "/us/428/0904-05", "/us/428/0904-01", "/us/428/0904-09", "/us/428/0904-03" ] }, { "cite": "220 S.E. 2d 293", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "298" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 N.C. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566449 ], "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "26" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/289/0019-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 590, "char_count": 10755, "ocr_confidence": 0.776, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.652894753602595e-08, "percentile": 0.49150857829935257 }, "sha256": "f8b45e55412947266b016ee1b6c54ade0f45eaae8824aae40eb605f65758eaa8", "simhash": "1:d56fc23b762d8e5e", "word_count": 1782 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:38.339487+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges PARKER and HILL concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MITCHELL A. PARKER" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MORRIS, Chief Judge.\nDefendant assigns error to the court\u2019s ruling allowing the prosecutor to question defendant concerning his previous psychiatric treatment. The prosecutor asked defendant: \u201cMr. Parker, have you ever received any psychiatric treatment prior to today, Sir?\u201d, to which defendant replied that he had undergone an examination at the request of his attorney to determine his ability to stand trial but had not undergone any psychiatric treatment or evaluation at any other time. Defendant argues that the State had already obtained information concerning a psychiatric evaluation of defendant, and that the prosecutor\u2019s questions were asked for the sole purpose of inflaming the minds of the jury. He contends that the question was improper because his mental capacity to stand trial was not at issue, and there was no claim of a defense of insanity. From our review, we conclude that this evidence was relevant for the purposes of impeachment and that the question was properly allowed.\n\u201cA witness, including a defendant in a criminal action, is subject to being impeached or discredited by cross-examination,\u201d State v. Waddell, 289 N.C. 19, 26, 220 S.E. 2d 293, 298 (1975), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 904, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1210, 96 S.Ct. 3211 (1976), and the scope of the cross-examination is not confined to matters brought out on direct examination but may extend to any matters relevant to the case. State v. Brown, 20 N.C. App. 71, 200 S.E. 2d 666 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 617, 202 S.E. 2d 274 (1974). The scope of such cross-examination is largely within the discretion of the trial judge. State v. Ruof, 296 N.C. 623, 252 S.E. 2d 720 (1979). A judge\u2019s ruling as to whether cross-examination \u201ctranscends propriety\u201d will not be disturbed absent a showing of gross abuse of discretion, State v. Ruof, supra, or a showing that the jury verdict was improperly influenced thereby. State v. McPherson, 276 N.C. 482, 172 S.E. 2d 50 (1970). It is a broadly accepted rule that in determining the credibility of a witness or the weight to be accorded his testimony, regard may be had to his mental condition. See generally 81 Am. Jur. 2d Witnesses \u00a7 540 (1976). In this regard, it has been held that a witness may be impeached by questions as to his mental state. E.G., State v. Conrad, 275 N.C. 342, 168 S.E. 2d 39 (1969); Moyle v. Hopkins, 222 N.C. 33, 21 S.E. 2d 826 (1942). Notwithstanding a prior determination of a witness\u2019s competency to testify, a showing of mental deficiency is relevant to the credibility of the witness. In State v. Witherspoon, 210 N.C. 647, 649, 188 S.E. 111, 112 (1936), our Supreme Court stated:\n[Competency and credibility] are not the same thing. A person may be a competent witness and yet not a credible one. Competency is a question for the court; credibility a matter for the jury.\nWe are aware of the decision in State v. Summrell, 13 N.C. App. 1, 185 S.E. 2d 241 (1971), reviewed on other grounds, 282 N.C. 157, 192 S.E. 2d 569 (1972), where defendant was charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assault on an officer. This Court found no error in the trial court\u2019s sustaining the State\u2019s objections to questions asked by defendant\u2019s counsel on cross-examination of a State\u2019s witness, one of which was whether the witness had sometime previous to the incident for which he was charged visited a mental health clinic. The Court held that the questions called for \u201cirrelevant and immaterial\u201d testimony. In the present case wherein defendant was charged with rape, we do not reach the same conclusion, nor has defendant presented anything on appeal which would require that result. There is no abuse of discretion in the court\u2019s ruling on defendant\u2019s objection. Certainly there has been no showing that inquiry into the mental health of defendant was sufficiently prejudicial to require a new trial.\nIn his next assignment of error defendant contends that the trial court erred by allowing testimony concerning his behavior and his resisting arrest when approached by police officers more than an hour after the alleged rape occurred. Evidence presented by the State revealed that after the incident with the prosecuting witness defendant returned to his dormitory room and refused to cooperate with police officers who subsequently arrived. Although the evidence does not concern the immediate circumstances surrounding the alleged rape, we reject defendant\u2019s argument that the evidence is irrelevant to the rape charge and was introduced solely to prejudice defendant.\nIt is our opinion that this evidence was properly admitted as bearing upon the issue of guilt to the rape charge, as well as the assault offense. \u201cNorth Carolina has long followed the rule that an accused\u2019s flight from a crime shortly after its commission is admissible as evidence of guilt.\u201d State v. Self, 280 N.C. 665, 672, 187 S.E. 2d 93, 97 (1972). \u201c[S]uch evidence does not create a presumption of guilt, but may be considered with other facts and circumstances in determining whether all the circumstances amount to an admission of guilt or reflect a consciousness of guilt.\u201d State v. Lampkins, 283 N.C. 520, 523, 196 S.E. 2d 697, 698 (1973). It having been established that defendant left the scene of the incident and later attempted to evade arresting officers, it was for the jury to determine whether those facts, together with the surrounding circumstances, evidenced defendant\u2019s guilt of the offenses charged.\nFinally, defendant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion to dismiss at the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence. Upon review of a motion to dismiss in a criminal case, the court must consider all the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and the State is entitled to every reasonable inference to be drawn therefrom. State v. McKinney, 288 N.C. 113, 215 S.E. 2d 578 (1975). If the court determines that there is sufficient evidence, direct or circumstantial, from which a reasonable inference of the defendant\u2019s guilt may be drawn, it must deny defendant\u2019s motion and send the case to the jury even though the evidence may also support reasonable inferences of defendant\u2019s innocence. State v. McKinney, supra; State v. Smith, 40 N.C. App. 72, 252 S.E. 2d 535 (1979). In the present case, the prosecuting witness testified that a male forced his way into her room and had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Frankie McLaurin testified that he fought with defendant as he was attempting to flee from the room. Police officers testified that they apprehended defendant in his dormitory room where he appeared to be hiding, and that he refused to cooperate with them. Even though defendant offered certain contradictory evidence, the trial judge nevertheless properly submitted the case to the jury. At this point, \u201cit is solely for the jury to determine whether the facts taken singly or in combination satisfy them beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is in fact guilty.\u201d State v. Smith, supra, 40 N.C. App. at 79, 252 S.E. 2d at 540. We must, therefore, overrule defendant\u2019s assignment of error.\nIn the trial of this case, we find\nNo error.\nJudges PARKER and HILL concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MORRIS, Chief Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.", "Gordon and Home, by John H. Home, Jr., for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MITCHELL A. PARKER\nNo. 7916SC625\n(Filed 19 February 1980)\n1. Criminal Law 8 89.7\u2014 cross-examination about psychiatric care \u2014 impeachment\nThe trial court in a rape case did not err in permitting the prosecutor to ask defendant on cross-examination whether he had ever received any psychiatric treatment since the question was competent for the purpose of impeachment.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 46\u2014 defendant\u2019s actions after crime \u2014 competency as evidence of flight\nIn this rape prosecution, evidence that defendant left the scene of the incident and went to his dormitory room and that he attempted to evade the arresting officers and was uncooperative when they went to his room more than an hour after the rape occurred was properly admitted as bearing upon the issue of his guilt of the rape charge.\n3. Rape \u00a7 5\u2014 second degree rape \u2014 sufficiency of evidence\nThe State\u2019s evidence was sufficient for the jury in a prosecution for second degree rape where the prosecutrix testified that a male forced his way into her dormitory room and had sexual intercourse with her against her will; a witness testified that he fought with defendant as defendant attempted to flee from the prosecutrix\u2019s room; and police officers testified that they apprehended defendant in his dormitory room where he appeared to be hiding and that he refused to cooperate with them.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Barbee, Judge. Judgment entered 9 February 1979 in Superior Court, SCOTLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 28 November 1979.\nDefendant was indicted on charges of second degree rape, assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury, and assault on a police officer. Upon the State\u2019s motion, the first two charges were consolidated for trial. The charge of assault on a police officer was tried separately.\nEvidence presented by the State at trial tended to show the following: On 18 June 1977 defendant, a student, approached the prosecutrix at the door to her room in a college dormitory and forced his way into her room. Resisting her attempts to escape, defendant had sexual intercourse with her against her will. Upon hearing other students outside the dormitory room, defendant fled. Defendant was confronted by a fellow student, Frankie McLaurin, who tried to prevent defendant\u2019s flight, and after a brief struggle, defendant escaped. Defendant was later arrested by police officers in his dormitory room where he was apparently hiding.\nDefendant presented medical evidence showing no presence of sperm on the body or clothing of the prosecuting witness, and that she had no scratches or bruises which would indicate a struggle. Defendant himself testified that he was near the prosecuting witness\u2019s room on the night in question; that she approached him and asked him to come into her room and talk with her; that shortly thereafter she began to scream, and left the room; and that he attempted to leave the room but was attacked by McLaurin. Defendant denied ever forcing the prosecuting witness to have sexual intercourse with him.\nThe jury found defendant not guilty of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious bodily injury. Defendant was found guilty of second degree rape, and appealed from the judgment entered on the verdict, sentencing him to a prison term of not less than 12 nor more than 30 years.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Thomas H. Davis, Jr., for the State.\nGordon and Home, by John H. Home, Jr., for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0276-01", "first_page_order": 304, "last_page_order": 308 }