{
  "id": 8526911,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARRELL McCRIMMON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. McCrimmon",
  "decision_date": "1984-07-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8316SC1081",
  "first_page": "689",
  "last_page": "691",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 N.C. App. 689"
    }
  ],
  "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": "96 S.Ct. 3203",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "S. Ct.",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 L.Ed. 2d 1205",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d",
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "428 U.S. 902",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6180680,
        6180844,
        6180492,
        6180302,
        6181071,
        6180146
      ],
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/428/0902-04",
        "/us/428/0902-05",
        "/us/428/0902-03",
        "/us/428/0902-02",
        "/us/428/0902-06",
        "/us/428/0902-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 750",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 N.C. 670",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8564781
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/284/0670-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 308,
    "char_count": 3940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20558090452377725
    },
    "sha256": "5db127d5519a07dc9e3db99713e3c73952693807bb4a23621a33c06902cd8d4f",
    "simhash": "1:814bb4e41e020407",
    "word_count": 670
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:04.613219+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Arnold concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARRELL McCRIMMON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PHILLIPS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s first contention is that the trial judge erred in permitting the District Attorney to ask two leading questions of its witness Robert Mclnnis. One of the questions complained of was not leading \u2014 \u201cDid you at any time tell Detective Sims any lies about what happened that night?\u201d Though the other question was leading \u2014 \u201cSo you told him the truth from the moment you were apprehended?\u201d \u2014 it had no prejudicial effect on defendant\u2019s trial, in our opinion, and this assignment of error is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s only other contention is that his objection to the following portions of the District Attorney\u2019s jury argument should have been sustained:\nMembers of the Jury, Mr. Diehl stated in his argument Darrell McCrimmon is charged with a serious offense, and I believe that all of you know that a person breaking into another person\u2019s home is committing a serious offense. And I ask each of you if someone breaks into your home in the middle of the night, would you think it was serious? If you had to go to work at 11:00 and you had to return at 12:30 or so, and find where someone had pried open your back door\u2014\nMr. DlEHL: Objection.\nCOURT: The jury will take its own recollection of what the evidence was. Overruled.\nNow, you can direct all your attention to the small inconsistency Mr. Diehl alluded to and you can let Mr. McCrimmon walk out of here, but I suggest to you that you will be doing a grave injustice to Mr. Martin, to Mr. Jones, and to Mr. Mc-lnnis also, a person who had enough guts to come here and testify, to admit to you his guilt, and that a person who can manipulate the system in such a way to bring relatives and friends to testify about\u2014\nMr. Diehl: Objection.\nCOURT: Overruled.\nMr. Carter Continues:\n\u2014that can bring friends and relatives to testify as to exact times that I suggest to you they are not sure about. . . .\nIn our opinion, the first argument was fairly responsive to the argument of defense counsel and the second was within the wide bounds that our practice permits. It is proper for a District Attorney to attack the credibility of witnesses for the defendant when basis therefor exists and we see no error in the argument complained of. State v. Noell, 284 N.C. 670, 202 S.E. 2d 750 (1974), death sentence vacated, 428 U.S. 902, 49 L.Ed. 2d 1205, 96 S.Ct. 3203 (1976).\nNo error.\nJudges Hedrick and Arnold concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PHILLIPS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.",
      "Philip A. Diehl for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARRELL McCRIMMON\nNo. 8316SC1081\n(Filed 17 July 1984)\nCriminal Law 8 102.7\u2014 jury argument \u2014 seriousness of offense \u2014 credibility of witness\nIn a prosecution for second-degree burglary the district attorney\u2019s jury argument regarding the seriousness of the offense was fairly responsive to the argument of defense counsel, and the argument concerning the credibility of defense witnesses was proper.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Walker, Hal Hammer, Judge. Judgment entered 1 June 1983 in Superior Court, SCOTLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 1 May 1984.\nDefendant was found guilty of second degree burglary. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show that: Late on the night of 9 December 1982 the unoccupied house of Jimmy Martin was broken into and a stereo unit and two speakers, valued at approximately $500, were stolen; one of Martin\u2019s neighbors saw defendant and Robert Mclnnis standing near the Martin home with a stereo system similar to the one stolen; and Mclnnis, who turned State\u2019s evidence, accompanied defendant to Martin\u2019s house and waited outside while defendant broke in and removed the stereo. Defendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that the night in question was spent at several other places, including a ball game and the homes of certain friends and relatives; but some of the witnesses that supported the alibi were uncertain about the times that he was at some of the places.\nAttorney General Edmisten, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.\nPhilip A. Diehl for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0689-01",
  "first_page_order": 717,
  "last_page_order": 719
}
