{
  "id": 8522304,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY EDWARD HARRELSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harrelson",
  "decision_date": "1981-10-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 8115SC306",
  "first_page": "349",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "54 N.C. App. 349"
    }
  ],
  "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": "243 S.E. 2d 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 N.C. 577",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574115
      ],
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/294/0577-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 S.E. 2d 522",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.C. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8573176
      ],
      "year": 1967,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/272/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 S.E. 2d 872",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.C. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8574364
      ],
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/299/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614170
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0727-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 382,
    "char_count": 6378,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.797,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2368451246351018e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7796724828358719
    },
    "sha256": "0c59048663ec8c9d83eac25683e4789c0e51c70eec27f700aca421bd4e1b9d9d",
    "simhash": "1:81a7d230de0a8da8",
    "word_count": 1023
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:28.716896+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judge Hedrick concurs in result.",
      "Judge WHICHARD concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY EDWARD HARRELSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HILL, Judge.\nDefendant first argues that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Levenia\u2019s mental condition. Defendant attempted to show through voir dire examination of George Harrelson that Levenia\u2019s mind had deteriorated with age, that she was forgetful, confused, and could not accurately remember things that happened or when events took place. Since she testified as an eyewitness, defendant believes the weight of Levenia\u2019s testimony should be for the jury to evaluate, especially in view of his contention that Levenia was not an eyewitness to the shooting. We agree. However, we do not find prejudicial error.\nIt is well settled that \u201c[t]he existence of a mental or physical impairment which would affect the witness\u2019s powers of observation, memory or narration, may be shown in order to discredit his testimony.\u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 44, pp. 122-23 (Brandis rev. 1973). This may be proven by cross-examination or by extrinsic evidence. State v. Armstrong, 232 N.C. 727, 62 S.E. 2d 50 (1950). Exclusion of the evidence of Levenia\u2019s mental impairment therefore was error.\nNevertheless, every error is not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. Defendant must show that the error complained of was prejudicial and thereby affected the result adversely to him. State v. Matthews, 299 N.C. 284, 261 S.E. 2d 872 (1980); State v. Paige, 272 N.C. 417, 158 S.E. 2d 522 (1967). If the testimony of Levenia Harrelson in the case sub judice is disregarded, there remains ample evidence in the record to sustain defendant\u2019s conviction in the form of George Harrelson\u2019s eyewitness testimony. The latter substantially corroborated Levenia\u2019s testimony about the shooting. Even so, the jury observed Levenia Harrelson on the witness stand. George Harrelson testified that his mother is eighty-one years old. Levenia\u2019s earlier testimony that she was only thirty-two years old certainly brought her mental state to the jury\u2019s attention. Therefore, for these reasons, we find that the trial court\u2019s failure to permit evidence of Levenia Harrelson\u2019s mental condition was not so prejudicial as to have adversely affected the result of defendant\u2019s trial.\nIn his second argument defendant alleges error by the trial court in sustaining the State\u2019s objection to a question put to defendant about whether George was on defendant\u2019s \u201cside\u201d or Owen\u2019s \u201cside\u201d of their argument on the weekend of the shooting. It is apparent that the form of the offending question required defendant to draw a conclusion as to what George Harrelson was thinking. The trial court thereafter allowed defendant to testify about things George did or said to him on the day of the shooting. Thus, from the admitted evidence the jury could properly evaluate the mental state of George Harrelson and thereby draw its own conclusions. The objection was properly sustained.\nBy his next assignment of error, defendant argues that the trial court erred in failing to include the evidence of the close range of the shot in its jury instructions. We do not agree. The trial judge is not required to recapitulate all the evidence in his charge to the jury, but only that amount necessary to explain the application of the law to the evidence. State v. Alston, 294 N.C. 577, 243 S.E. 2d 354 (1978); G.S. 15A-1232. Evidence of the close range at which defendant shot Owen Harrelson was before the jury. It was not necessary to recapitulate such evidence for the jury to understand and decide upon his plea of self-defense. This assignment of error is overruled.\nWe also overrule defendant\u2019s assignments of error which allege error in the trial court\u2019s jury instructions on the law of self-defense and voluntary manslaughter. These arguments have no merit and do not warrant further discussion.\nIn defendant\u2019s trial, we find\nNo error.\nJudge Hedrick concurs in result.\nJudge WHICHARD concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HILL, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Grayson G. Kelley, for the State.",
      "Epting, Hackney & Long, by Joe Hackney, for defendant-appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. HENRY EDWARD HARRELSON\nNo. 8115SC306\n(Filed 20 October 1981)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 167\u2014 error in excluding evidence of witness\u2019s mental condition not prejudicial\nIt was error to exclude evidence of defendant\u2019s mother\u2019s mental condition as she testified as an eyewitness but defendant testified she was not present and as the existence of a mental impairment may be shown to discredit testimony. However, the error was not prejudicial as there was ample evidence to sustain defendant\u2019s conviction absent his mother\u2019s testimony and as the jury was able to observe defendant\u2019s mother on the witness stand.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 113.1\u2014 jury instructions \u2014recapitulation of evidence\nIt was not necessary to recapitulate evidence of the close range of the shot killing the deceased for the jury to understand and decide upon defendant\u2019s plea of self-defense.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Britt, Judge. Judgment entered 29 October 1980 in Superior Court, ORANGE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 22 September 1981.\nThe State\u2019s evidence tended to show that Levenia Harrelson was the mother of the deceased, Owen Harrelson, and defendant. She and another son, George Harrelson, were eyewitnesses to the murder for which defendant was charged. On 14 June 1980 the Harrelsons were at home. The evidence indicated that defendant had been drinking liquor heavily. However, defendant apparently was asleep until Owen walked to the refrigerator. Both Levenia and George testified that they saw defendant shoot Owen in the neck while he was standing in front of the refrigerator. George testified that after the shooting defendant got a knife and put it beside Owen\u2019s body. There was evidence that on the previous day Owen and defendant argued over some meat.\nDefendant testified at length about arguments he had with his two brothers over some wine and liquor. Owen accused defendant of stealing some meat, defendant stated, and continued \u201ccussing\u201d him about it on the day of the shooting. Owen threatened defendant with a knife and defendant shot him \u201cbecause [he] was scared of him.\u201d According to defendant\u2019s testimony, Levenia was not in the house at that time. Defendant also offered evidence of four prior incidents where Owen had assaulted someone.\nDefendant was found guilty of second degree murder. From the judgment entered thereon, defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Grayson G. Kelley, for the State.\nEpting, Hackney & Long, by Joe Hackney, for defendant-appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0349-01",
  "first_page_order": 377,
  "last_page_order": 379
}