{
  "id": 8521958,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GROVER FLOYD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Floyd",
  "decision_date": "1982-03-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 8116SC897",
  "first_page": "459",
  "last_page": "461",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "56 N.C. App. 459"
    }
  ],
  "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": "183 S.E. 898",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 N.C. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2221577
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/209/0404-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 3270,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43882017831927655
    },
    "sha256": "a8ca6f3637d90550d25395a45a38b2d41669ba5eff6a2028630e1f5bfa0d1b8d",
    "simhash": "1:cfcbc14d3b4c18a0",
    "word_count": 525
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:44:21.707745+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Clark and Whichard concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GROVER FLOYD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ARNOLD, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s sole assignment of error is that the trial court wrongfully excluded the testimony of two witnesses called by the defense to attest to defendant\u2019s good character. Defendant argues that both witnesses testified that they had known him for a number of years and were familiar with his reputation. Defendant asserts that the court\u2019s exclusion of their testimony on grounds that it was not based on what they had heard others say about defendant was error. We agree.\nWhile it is well established that proof of character presented as evidence of one\u2019s conduct on a given occasion must be based on one\u2019s reputation in the community rather than specific acts or the personal opinion of a witness, it does not follow that the only acceptable evidence of reputation is what the witness has \u201cheard.\u201d Indeed, what the witnesses here had not heard about the defendant, e.g. derogatory comments, may have been far better evidence of his reputation.\nWe conclude that where a witness testifies that he has lived for some time in the same community with the person whose character is at issue, has known that person personally, and has heard nothing negative about him, the witness\u2019s testimony is admissible as evidence of reputation. See State v. Carden, 209 N.C. 404, 183 S.E. 898 (1936), 1 Stansbury\u2019s N.C. Evidence \u00a7 110 (Bran-dis Rev. 1973). The trial court erred in concluding otherwise.\nIn the case at bar, there were no witnesses to the disputed events other than the defendant and the prosecuting witness. The outcome of the trial, therefore, necessarily turned on which version of the facts the jury believed, ie. which witness the jury found more credible. Accordingly, we find the court\u2019s error in excluding evidence of defendant\u2019s reputation was prejudicial and entitles him to a\nNew trial.\nJudges Clark and Whichard concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ARNOLD, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Michael Rivers Morgan, for the State.",
      "John Wishart Campbell for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. GROVER FLOYD\nNo. 8116SC897\n(Filed 16 March 1982)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 85.1\u2014 evidence of defendant\u2019s reputation\nWhere a witness testifies that he has lived for some time in the same community with the person whose character is at issue, has known that person personally, and has heard nothing negative about him, the witness\u2019s testimony is admissible as evidence of reputation.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Brewer, Judge. Judgment entered 7 April 1981 in Superior Court, ROBESON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 February 1982.\nDefendant was charged in a bill of indictment with assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury.\nState\u2019s evidence tended to show that in the early morning hours of 27 December 1980, the defendant shot one Fred Powers outside a discotheque in Lumberton, North Carolina. The prosecuting witness testified that defendant attacked him without provocation. Defendant claimed the gun accidentally discharged when the prosecuting witness grabbed the defendant and wrestled him to the ground. There were no other eyewitnesses to the shooting.\nThe jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury and defendant was sentenced to three years imprisonment. Defendant appeals.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Associate Attorney Michael Rivers Morgan, for the State.\nJohn Wishart Campbell for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0459-01",
  "first_page_order": 491,
  "last_page_order": 493
}