{ "id": 8548606, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAIBORNE LEE SHERRON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Sherron", "decision_date": "1969-10-22", "docket_number": "No. 6914SC493", "first_page": "435", "last_page": "437", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "6 N.C. App. 435" } ], "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": "166 S.E. 2d 836", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "4 N.C. App. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8553648 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/4/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "162 S.E. 907", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N.C. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626477 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0378-01" ] }, { "cite": "72 S.E. 2d 750", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "236 N.C. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/236/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 374", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 459", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219509 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0459-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 2d 333", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "259 N.C. 249", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559945 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/259/0249-01" ] }, { "cite": "140 S.E. 2d 767", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "264 N.C. 77", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570869 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/264/0077-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 81", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "201 N.C. 620", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627240 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0620-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 289, "char_count": 4494, "ocr_confidence": 0.566, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07, "percentile": 0.603352164547045 }, "sha256": "d533937258d59af54dc91caf3833cb96ab00080fb597d4e2ebae4353c3bf739e", "simhash": "1:24caf22b12933c69", "word_count": 793 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:07:50.917320+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Campbell and Geaham, JJ., concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAIBORNE LEE SHERRON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PARKER, J.\nThe substance of the new evidence referred to in defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial was: First, a letter dated 7 August 1968 purportedly written by defendant\u2019s wife, who was prosecuting witness at the trial which resulted in his conviction and imprisonment, stating that at the time of the trial she was pregnant by another man; and second, the complaint in a divorce action verified by the wife on 18 March'1969, in which she alleged that the child had been bom of her marriage to defendant. Defendant contends that this evidence would show that at the time of his trial the prosecuting witness had committed adultery, that this furnished a substantial reason for her to falsify her testimony in order to get rid of her husband, and that later she made a false allegation as to paternity of the child when she verified the complaint in the divorce action. Defendant argues that this evidence indicates that the prosecuting witness not only had reason to falsify her testimony against him but also had a propensity to do so.\nThe prerequisites for granting a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence were stated by Stacy, C.J., in the oft-cited case of State v. Casey, 201 N.C. 620, 161 S.E. 81. Among these prerequisites were that the newly discovered evidence \u201cdoes not tend only to contradict a former witness or to impeach or discredit him,\u201d and \u201c(t)hat it is of such a nature as to show that on another trial a different result will probably be reached.\u201d The evidence offered by defendant in support of his motion fails to meet these prerequisites. At most it would tend only to impeach one of the witnesses against him.\nMoreover, a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion. State v. Morrow, 264 N.C. 77, 140 S.E. 2d 767; State v. Dixon, 259 N.C. 249, 130 S.E. 2d 333; State v. Williams, 244 N.C. 459, 94 S.E. 2d 374; State v. Bryant, 236 N.C. 379, 72 S.E. 2d 750; State v. Cox, 202 N.C. 378, 162 S.E. 907. No abuse of discretion appears on this record, and this matter is therefore\nDismissed.\nCampbell and Geaham, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "PARKER, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney\u25a0 General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney (Mrs.) Christine Y. Denson for the State.", "John C. Randall for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. CLAIBORNE LEE SHERRON\nNo. 6914SC493\n(Filed 22 October 1969)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 motion for new trial for newly discovered evidence \u2014 impeachment of prosecutrix \u2014 different result on retrial\nWhere defendant was convicted of assaulting Ms wife, defendant\u2019s motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence was properly denied where such evidence tended to show that at the time of the trial defendant\u2019s wife was pregnant by another man and that she later falsely alleged in a divorce action that the child had been bom of her marriage to defendant, since at most the evidence would tend only to impeach one of the witnesses against defendant and is not of such a nature as to show that on another trial a different result would probably be reached.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 131\u2014 new trial for newly discovered evidence \u2014 discretion of court\nA motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and its refusal to grant the motion is not reviewable in the absence of abuse of discretion.\nON Writ of Certiorari to review an order of Ragsdale, J., at the 26 May 1969 Criminal Session of Durham Superior Court.'\nOn 12 June 1968 defendant was convicted in the Superior Court of Durham County of the crime of assault on a female, he being a male -over eighteen years old. He was sentenced to prison for a term of 21-24 months. On appeal to this Court the judgment was affirmed by opinion certified to the clerk of Superior Court of Durham County on 12 May 1969. State v. Sherron, 4 N.C. App. 386, 166 S.E. 2d 836. At the next term of Superior Court following certification of the opinion of. the . Court of Appeals, defendant, through counsel, moved that the verdict against him he set aside and he be granted a new trial on the grounds of newly discovered evidence. From order denying his motion for a new trial, defendant gave notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals. After docketing the record in this Court, defendant moved that this matter be considered as upon petition for writ of certiorari, which motion was granted.\nAttorney\u25a0 General Robert Morgan and Staff Attorney (Mrs.) Christine Y. Denson for the State.\nJohn C. Randall for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0435-01", "first_page_order": 459, "last_page_order": 461 }