{
  "id": 8358997,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN R. WILLIAMS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Williams",
  "decision_date": "1986-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 863SC315",
  "first_page": "526",
  "last_page": "529",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "83 N.C. App. 526"
    }
  ],
  "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": "309 S.E. 2d 280",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 N.C. App. 350",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8523862
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/65/0350-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 333,
    "char_count": 5508,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.803,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7517386148767746
    },
    "sha256": "85634ea6ba6cb6301a6194a0184a3d578507a8a97319256cee221c36fb9309ce",
    "simhash": "1:e54dc5f2f647847b",
    "word_count": 959
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:07:52.921422+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Orr concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN R. WILLIAMS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge.\nDefendant first contends that the trial court erred to his prejudice in overruling defendant\u2019s objection to testimony by George Walston, the victim of the robbery, that he had received a phone call from defendant\u2019s girl friend in which she identified herself as \u201cthat fellow that had robbed [you]\u2019s wife.\u201d Defendant argues that this statement is inadmissible because the phone call was not properly authenticated and also because the statement is hearsay not subject to any exception to the hearsay rule.\nWe must examine the context of this testimony. On cross-examination, defense counsel had asked Mr. Walston if he had been to defendant\u2019s girl friend\u2019s home:\nQ: Didn\u2019t you go around to where his girl friend lives?\nA: Yes.\nQ: Won\u2019t that while my client was in the County Jail that you went to visit his girl friend?\nA: Yes. He was.\nQ: And you were checking on her to see what?\nA: We had collected the box of items to take to them.\nQ: Some food items, was it?\nA: Yes, it was.\nQ: And you were checking on her welfare while he was in jail; is that right?\nA: I was taking food for the welfare of the kids there.\nQ: All right. You were there for the welfare of my client\u2019s girl friend and his kids, and you won\u2019t the least bit interested in the girl friend of his; were you?\nA: No.\nQ: That didn\u2019t have anything to do with the purpose of going there?\nA: No.\nOn redirect examination, the prosecutor tried to clear up Mr. Walston\u2019s reasons for going to defendant\u2019s girl friend\u2019s home:\nQ: How did you know, Mr. Walston, that Mr. Williams\u2019s girl friend needed food?\nA: She made a telephone call down there at my place of business.\nQ: She called you at Alice\u2019s?\nA: Yes, she did.\nQ: How did she identify herself to you? Do you remember?\nA: She identified herself as that fellow that had robbed me\u2019s wife.\nQ: What did she say to you?\nA: She said she was going through some hard times and had kids that didn\u2019t have any food.\nDefense counsel had put in question Mr. Walston\u2019s motives for going to the girl friend\u2019s house. Mr. Walston, in the disputed testimony, was merely explaining why he went there. Therefore, it was not necessary for the telephone call to be authenticated as coming from defendant\u2019s girl friend.\nThe statement Mr. Walston testified that he heard over the phone was not hearsay. G.S. 8C-1, Rule 801(c) provides that \u201c \u2018Hearsay\u2019 is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\u201d The statement in question was not offered into evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted (that the caller was the wife of someone who had robbed Mr. Walston), but only to show why Mr. Walston went to defendant\u2019s girl friend\u2019s home.\nDefendant next contends that the trial court committed prejudicial error in overruling defendant\u2019s objection to a question asked of Carolyn Hardy, defendant\u2019s girl friend, on cross-examination. Defendant argues that the question, which concerned how Ms. Hardy paid her rent, asked for irrelevant information.\nIt is well-established that a party to an action may elicit from an opposing witness on cross-examination particular facts having a logical tendency to show that the witness is biased against him or his cause, or that the witness is interested adversely to him in the outcome of the litigation. State ex rel Everett v. Hardy, 65 N.C. App. 350, 309 S.E. 2d 280 (1983). An examination of the trial transcript reveals that at this point in her cross-examination, the prosecutor was attempting to show bias on the part of Ms. Hardy by showing that she had been living with defendant and their two children, she had no job or money of her own, and thus she was very much interested in the outcome of the case. The question was proper.\nWe hold that defendant had a fair trial, free from prejudicial error.\nNo error.\nJudges Arnold and Orr concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HEDRICK, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Debbie K. Wright, for the State.",
      "Assistant Appellate Defender Geoffrey C. Mangum for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MELVIN R. WILLIAMS\nNo. 863SC315\n(Filed 16 December 1986)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a78 69, 73.2\u2014 telephone conversation \u2014 not authenticated \u2014 not hearsay \u2014 admissible\nThe trial court did not err in an armed robbery prosecution by admitting testimony from the victim that he had received a telephone call in which the caller identified herself as the wife of the man who robbed him. Defense counsel had put in question the victim\u2019s motives for going to defendant\u2019s girl friend\u2019s house and the victim was merely explaining why he went there. The statement was not hearsay because it was not offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89\u2014 credibility of witness \u2014 source of rent\nThe trial court did not err in an armed robbery prosecution by overruling defendant\u2019s objection to a question concerning how his girl friend paid her rent because the prosecution was attempting to show bias on the part of the witness in that she had been living with defendant and their two children and had no job or money of her own.\nAppeal by defendant from Barefoot, Judge. Judgment entered 23 May 1985 in Superior Court, Pitt County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 13 October 1986.\nDefendant was charged in a proper bill of indictment with robbery with a firearm in violation of G.S. 14-87. He was found guilty as charged. From a judgment imposing a prison sentence of fourteen years, defendant appealed.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Debbie K. Wright, for the State.\nAssistant Appellate Defender Geoffrey C. Mangum for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0526-01",
  "first_page_order": 554,
  "last_page_order": 557
}