{ "id": 8520138, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY L. WOODRUP", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Woodrup", "decision_date": "1982-12-21", "docket_number": "No. 824SC483", "first_page": "205", "last_page": "207", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "60 N.C. App. 205" } ], "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": "285 S.E. 2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 N.C. 643", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8570316 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/304/0643-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 S.E. 2d 780", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "58 N.C. App. 818", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8526366 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/58/0818-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 262, "char_count": 3648, "ocr_confidence": 0.791, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.279034880960449e-07, "percentile": 0.7848801223546238 }, "sha256": "627688eb6a8c00bcdda5490b8372b074c6dddefb0c233dfba65ffab2c5167232", "simhash": "1:27a8b428568b5bee", "word_count": 614 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:46.639047+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Vaughn and Whichard concur." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY L. WOODRUP" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nIn his first, second, fourth, fifth, and sixth arguments, defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to give instructions requested by defendant or by failing to give other instructions required by the evidence. In order for us to give these arguments effective appellate review, it is necessary for us to review the trial court\u2019s entire charge to the jury. Defendant has not included the charge of the Court either in the record on appeal or as an appendix to his brief. This violation of the provisions of Rule 9(c)(1) and Rule 28(b)(4) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that we not consider these questions. See State v. Wilson, 58 N.C. App. 818, 294 S.E. 2d 780 (1982).\nIn his third argument, defendant contends that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to impeachment cross-examination. Defendant\u2019s assignment of error is based upon the following portions of the State\u2019s cross-examination of defendant.\nQ: In 1974, sir, you pled guilty to felonious larceny, is that correct?\nA: Felonious larceny, yes.\nQ: And that was reduced to three counts of larceny from one count of larceny?\nMr. Donley: Objection.\nThe Court: Overruled. Exception No. 5\nQ: Wasn\u2019t it, sir?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Okay, it was also a breaking and entering in a building also, didn\u2019t you.\nA: No.\nQ: You didn\u2019t break in a building?\nA: No.\nAs noted by defendant in his brief, the district attorney obviously intended to ask defendant if three counts against him had been reduced to one. These questions clearly had the effect of asking the defendant whether he had been indicted for two counts of larceny. In State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971), our Supreme Court held that it is reversible error to allow such questions for the purpose of impeaching a defendant in a criminal trial. See also State v. Shane, 304 N.C. 643, 285 S.E. 2d 813 (1982). The testimony of the victim in this case squarely conflicted with defendant\u2019s version of the events which led to defendant\u2019s arrest and conviction. Defendant\u2019s credibility was, therefore, critical to his defense. We are persuaded defendant was prejudiced by the trial court\u2019s action in allowing the prosecutor to ask defendant about indictments for larceny. For this error, there must be a\nNew trial.\nJudges Vaughn and Whichard concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Marilyn R. Rich, for the State.", "Appellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. RICKY L. WOODRUP\nNo. 824SC483\n(Filed 21 December 1982)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 163\u2014 failure to give instructions \u2014 entire charge not in record on appeal\nDefendant\u2019s contention that the trial court erred in failing to give requested instructions and in failing to give instructions required by the evidence will not be considered on appeal where defendant failed to include the charge of the court either in the record on appeal or as an appendix to his brief. Appellate Rules 9(c)(1) and 28(b)(4).\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 86.4\u2014 impeachment of defendant \u2014 prior indictments for crime\nCross-examination of defendant as to whether he had previously pled guilty to felonious larceny after three counts of larceny were reduced to one count had the effect of asking defendant whether he had been indicted for other crimes and was improper.\nAppeal by defendant from Barefoot, Judge. Judgment entered 6 April 1981 in ONSLOW County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 November 1982.\nDefendant was convicted by a jury of robbery with a firearm. From judgment imposing an active sentence of 30 years, defendant has appealed.\nAttorney General Rufus L. Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Marilyn R. Rich, for the State.\nAppellate Defender Adam Stein, by Assistant Appellate Defender Marc D. Towler, for defendant." }, "file_name": "0205-01", "first_page_order": 237, "last_page_order": 239 }