{ "id": 8520907, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLEN JUDGE", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Judge", "decision_date": "1980-10-21", "docket_number": "No. 804SC554", "first_page": "290", "last_page": "293", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "49 N.C. App. 290" } ], "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": "169 S.E. 2d 134", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "138" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 N.C. App. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8546697 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "24" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/6/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 S.E. 2d 551", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "565" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 N.C. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568503 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "109" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/298/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "242 S.E. 2d 769", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "779" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "294 N.C. 446", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573979 ], "year": 1978, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "462" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/294/0446-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 361, "char_count": 5270, "ocr_confidence": 0.736, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.736152507775605e-08, "percentile": 0.4550197714229671 }, "sha256": "ae35e84460f224d8e18b72acf955663398d10fb24e28c1873463b36a322f2d7e", "simhash": "1:1faf67abdb9461f2", "word_count": 904 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:45:37.060516+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Arnold and Hill concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLEN JUDGE" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "ERWIN, Judge.\nDefendant first contends that testimony elicited by the State from Marvin Lee concerning threats made by defendant against Lee and in the presence of Rogers was irrelevant and prejudicial.\nThe test of the relevancy of evidence \u201cis whether it tends to shed any light on the subject of the inquiry or has as its only, effect the exciting of prejudice or sympathy.\u201d State v. Braxton, 294 N.C. 446, 462, 242 S.E. 2d 769, 779 (1978). Evidence offered by the State, which tends to prove a relevant fact, \u201cwill not be excluded merely because it also shows defendant to have been guilty of an independent crime, [authorities omitted] Where evidence tends to prove a motive on the defendant\u2019s part to commit the crime charged, it is admissible even though it discloses the commission of another offense by the defendant.\u201d State v. Cherry, 298 N.C. 86, 109, 257 S.E. 2d 551, 565 (1979).\nLee testified, over objection, that defendant stated to Lee, and in the presence of Rogers, that \u201c T ain\u2019t never liked you and you got Indian blood in you and I\u2019m going to open you up and see some of it.\u2019 \u201d Lee testified that at that point, Rogers intervened and told defendant that he was \u201cridiculous of starting a fuss.\u201d We hold that the evidence complained of was relevant to indicate the relationship between defendant and Rogers that morning and a possible motive of the defendant in pursuing the quarrel approximately one hour to one and one-half hours later. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant assigned error to comments made by the trial court during the following exchange in the course of cross-examination of a State\u2019s witness who was at the pool hall:\n\u201cQ. [By defense counsel] You know they serve liquor in that house?\nA. I\u2019ll take the Fifth Amendment on that.\nCourt: He\u2019s not accusing you of serving it.\nMr. Jordan: If Your Honor please, I ask the Court \u2014\nCourt: I won\u2019t require him to answer because I don\u2019t think \u2014 I just won\u2019t. Go ahead to something else.\nEXCEPTION NO. 18.\u201d\nDefendant argues that the trial court expressed an opinion on the strength of the evidence or the credibility of the witness to the prejudice of defendant.\n\u201c[A] remark by the court in admitting or excluding evidence is not prejudicial when it amounts to no more than a ruling on the question or where it is made to expedite the trial.\u201d State v. Cox, 6 N.C. App. 18, 24, 169 S.E. 2d 134, 138 (1969). The probable effect of the comment upon the jury must be examined, considering the comment in the light of the circumstances under which it was made. Id.\nWe are of the opinion that the remark made by the trial judge amounted to no more than a ruling on the question, and it was not prejudicial to defendant. This assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant received a trial free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Hill concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "ERWIN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Kaye R. Webb, for the State.", "Louis Jordan, for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES ALLEN JUDGE\nNo. 804SC554\n(Filed 21 October 1980)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 34.7- defendant\u2019s threats against witness - competency to show motive\nIn this homicide prosecution, a witness\u2019s testimony that defendant had made threats against the witness in the victim\u2019s presence approximately an hour before the killing and that the victim intervened was relevant to show the relationship between defendant and the victim and a possible motive of defendant in pursuing the quarrel at the time the victim was killed.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 99.4- comments by trial court - no expression of opinion on witness\u2019s credibility\nThe trial court did not express an opinion on the credibility of a witness when defense counsel asked the witness whether he knew that liquor was served in the house where the killing in question occurred, the witness asserted his Fifth Amendment rights, and the court told the witness that defense counsel was \u201cnot accusing you of serving it\u201d and then stated, \u201cI won\u2019t require him to answer because I don\u2019t think \u2014 I just won\u2019t,\u201d since the court\u2019s remarks amounted to no more than a ruling on the question asked the witness.\nAppeal by defendant from Fountain, Judge. Judgment entered 9 January 1980 in Superior Court, Duplin County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 October 1980.\nDefendant was properly indicted for murder of one Lawrence Steve Rogers.\nIn summary, the evidence for the State tended to show that Marvin Lee, Lawrence Steve Rogers, and defendant were together at about 9:15 a.m. on 29 September 1979. Lee and defendant had an argument, and Rogers intervened. Lee testified that he observed defendant produce a ten inch long, silver-blade, switch-blade knife with a light brown handle, and he heard defendant tell Rogers that he was not afraid of him. Lee left the area. Later that morning, defendant and Rogers were at a pool hall, and a fight started between them when defendant beat on the bar and told Rogers he was not afraid of him. It culminated in defendant\u2019s stabbing Rogers in the chest. An autopsy revealed that Rogers bled to death as the result of the stab wound. Defendant presented no evidence.\nDefendant was found guilty of manslaughter, and he was sentenced to serve a minimum of 18 and a maximum of 20 years in prison. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Kaye R. Webb, for the State.\nLouis Jordan, for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0290-01", "first_page_order": 318, "last_page_order": 321 }