{
  "id": 8527104,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY W. GREEN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Green",
  "decision_date": "1981-12-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 8118SC672",
  "first_page": "255",
  "last_page": "257",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 N.C. App. 255"
    }
  ],
  "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": "11 S.E. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "148"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "218 N.C. 369",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8619478
      ],
      "year": 1940,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "372"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/218/0369-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 303,
    "char_count": 4864,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.795,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7530222804495552
    },
    "sha256": "88b8f6ecb86bf81724179709c3b8d1a659c4cdcd3ca12598d6cf7a67c176bbcf",
    "simhash": "1:14e8f8ca370f38d6",
    "word_count": 763
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:47.759339+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges WEBB and HILL concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY W. GREEN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "VAUGHN, Judge.\nDefendant brings forward three assignments of error. None of them disclose prejudicial error.\nDefendant\u2019s first assignment of error relates to testimony by Dr. Dove concerning the paternity tests administered to defendant, the natural mother, and the child. Defendant argues that Dr. Dove did not personally perform the tests. He, therefore, should not be allowed to testify to their results and to the possibility that defendant is the child\u2019s natural father. G.S. 8-50.1, however, specifically allows such testimony: \u201cThe results of those blood tests and comparisons, including the statistical likelihood of the alleged parent\u2019s parentage, if available, shall be admitted in evidence when offered by a duly qualified, licensed practicing physician, duly qualified immunologist, duly qualified geneticist, or other duly qualified person.\u201d\nDr. Dove is the director of paternity testing in the immunology lab of Bowman-Gray School of Medicine. He, therefore, is a duly qualified person under G.S. 8-50.1. Since G.S. 8-50.1 allows testimony of paternity test results without requiring personal performance of the test, defendant\u2019s objection is overruled. We also overrule defendant\u2019s objections to Dr. Dove\u2019s testimony explaining the paternity test.\nDefendant next assigns as error the admission of opinion testimony by the natural mother. The district attorney asked her, \u201cNow, would you look at your daughter and Mr. Green and tell us if she bears any relationship to Mr. Green.\u201d Overruling objections by defendant, the court allowed the witness to reply, \u201cTo me, the forehead, she has the forehead and the side view.\u201d Defendant argues that the opinion invaded the province of the jury.\nEven if the question by the district attorney was improper, we fail to find prejudicial error. Where paternity is in issue, the child may be exhibited to show a resemblance to the alleged father. 1 Stansbury, N.C. Evidence \u00a7 119 (Brandis rev. 1973). Here, the child had been introduced into evidence as State\u2019s Exhibit No. 3. Although the defendant did not take the stand, he was present in the courtroom. The jury was, therefore, free to observe both the defendant and child and reach its own conclusion as to any similarities in appearance. See also State v. Brackett, 218 N.C. 369, 372, 11 S.E. 2d 146, 148 (1940).\nDefendant\u2019s final argument is that the court erred in allowing hearsay evidence concerning defendant\u2019s alleged work record. The child support enforcement officer assigned to the mother and child\u2019s case, testified concerning defendant\u2019s ability to work. At one point, the officer referred to his file in answer to a question about when defendant had earlier had a job. The record is unclear as to whether the witness checked his file before or during trial. The witness, however, clearly stated in later testimony that his opinion that defendant was presently able to work was based on his conversations with and observations of defendant. Since the witness\u2019 opinion was based on personal knowledge, defendant\u2019s assignment of error is without merit.\nNo error.\nJudges WEBB and HILL concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "VAUGHN, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ben G. Irons II, for the State.",
      "Assistant Public Defender Frederick G. Lind, for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. BOBBY W. GREEN, JR.\nNo. 8118SC672\n(Filed 15 December 1981)\n1. Bastards \u00a7 5.1\u2014 paternity test results \u2014competency of witness\nThe director of paternity testing in the immunology lab of Bowman-Gray School of Medicine was qualified under G.S. 8-50.1 to testify as to the results of paternity tests administered to defendant, the natural mother and the child although he did not personally perform the tests.\n2. Bastards \u00a7 5\u2014 failure to support illegitimate child \u2014mother\u2019s opinion as to resemblance of child to defendant\nIn a prosecution for willful refusal to support an illegitimate child, testimony by the child\u2019s mother that her forehead and side view resembled that of defendant, if improper, did not constitute prejudicial error since the child was introduced into evidence, defendant was present in the courtroom, and the jury was, therefore, free to observe both the defendant and the child and reach its own conclusion as to any similarities in appearance.\n3. Bastards \u00a7 5\u2014 failure to support illegitimate child \u2014ability of defendant to work\nIn a prosecution for willful failure to support an illegitimate child, a child support enforcement officer could properly state his opinion that defendant was presently able to work based on his conversations with and observations of defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Washington, Judge. Judgment entered 20 November 1980 in Superior Court, GUILFORD County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 8 December 1981.\nDefendant was convicted of willfully neglecting and refusing to provide adequate support for his illegitimate child.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Ben G. Irons II, for the State.\nAssistant Public Defender Frederick G. Lind, for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0255-01",
  "first_page_order": 287,
  "last_page_order": 289
}