{
  "id": 8551432,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES THOMAS SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1969-07-23",
  "docket_number": "No. 6910SC194",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "507",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 N.C. App. 505"
    }
  ],
  "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": "152 S.E. 2d 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8563201
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S.E. 806",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N.C. 710",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629012
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0710-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 264,
    "char_count": 4176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.518,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6033573772061614
    },
    "sha256": "8d2b2df1f9947b07d5104775c3ad2a8d397bbfe7ced46b013d101aced1ade232",
    "simhash": "1:1f56911699af3e53",
    "word_count": 691
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:43.915660+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES THOMAS SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PARKER, J.\nThe sole assignment of error brought forward in defendant\u2019s brief relates to the following incident which occurred during the course of the trial: While evidence for the State was being presented, the assistant solicitor asked a question of one of the State\u2019s witnesses. The witness made a non-responsive answer in stating: \u201cAnd at that time, I saw him (referring to the defendant) in the courtroom being tried in the City courtroom.\u201d The defendant objected. Immediately thereafter the assistant solicitor admonished the witness, \u201cDon\u2019t tell that,\u201d whereupon the court sustained the objection. The sole assignment of error is that the court erred in failing to go forward to instruct the jury not to consider this evidence as to character, for the reason that the defendant, not having himself testified, the character of defendant was not before the jury at that time. There is no merit in this assignment of error.\n\u201cIt is well settled in this jurisdiction that defendant\u2019s objection should have been accompanied by a motion to strike the objectionable statement from the record if he deemed it incompetent and prejudicial. If he desired to do so, he should have requested an instruction to the effect that the jury should not consider it as evidence.\u201d State v. Gooding, 196 N.C. 710, 146 S.E. 806.\nIn the present case, defendant made no motion to strike nor did he request an instruction to the jury.\nThe situation presented by this case is similar to that which was presented in the case of State v. Battle, 269 N.C. 292, 152 S.E. 2d 191, in which the court, even before objection could be made by defendant, admonished the State\u2019s witness not to testify concerning his having seen defendant in the presence of the probation officer. In that case, the Supreme Court of North Carolina in a per curiam decision said:\n\u201cConceding the reference to parole or probation officer was-improper, nevertheless the court\u2019s direct and positive correction without waiting for objection or motion to strike could have been understood by the jury only as disapproval of the officer\u2019s gratuitous remark and that the officer was off limits in making it.\u201d State v. Battle, supra.\nIn the present case it was the assistant solicitor, rather than the trial judge, who admonished the witness not to go into the forbidden matters. When the trial judge immediately thereafter sustained defendant\u2019s objection he, in effect, affirmed the warning which had been given by the assistant solicitor and this action on his part could only have been understood by the jury as disapproval of the witness\u2019s gratuitous remark in this case fully as much as if the trial judge had himself admonished the witness.\nNo prejudicial error has been made to appear, and in the trial and judgment, we find\nNo error.\nMallard, C.J., and Britt, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PARKER, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, and Staff Attorney. Thomas B. Wood for the State.",
      "Stanley L. Seligson for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES THOMAS SMITH\nNo. 6910SC194\n(Filed 23 July 1969)\nCriminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 34, 170\u2014 defendant\u2019s guilt of other crimes \u2014 evidence \u2014 prejudicial error\nTrial court did not err in failing to instruct the jury not to consider non-responsive answer of State\u2019s witness that he saw defendant being tried in city court, defendant\u2019s character not being in issue at the time, where trial judge immediately sustained defendant\u2019s objection after the solicitor had admonished the witness, and where defendant' made no motion to strike nor did he request an instruction to the jury.\nAppeal by defendant from McKinnon, J., at the Regular 2 December 1968 Criminal Session of WAKE Superior Court.\nDefendant was tried on a bill of indictment containing two counts, one charging him with the crime of forgery and the other charging him with the crime of uttering a forged instrument. He pleaded not guilty, and was found guilty by the jury on the charge of uttering a forged instrument. The court directed a verdict of not guilty on the count of forgery. From judgment imposing prison sentence upon the verdict of guilty to the charge of uttering a forged instrument, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Robert Morgan, Deputy Attorney General Harrison Lewis, and Staff Attorney. Thomas B. Wood for the State.\nStanley L. Seligson for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 527,
  "last_page_order": 529
}