{
  "id": 12135155,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WOOTEN, JR.",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wooten",
  "decision_date": "1987-07-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 868SC1252",
  "first_page": "481",
  "last_page": "483",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "86 N.C. App. 481"
    }
  ],
  "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": "173 S.E. 2d 281",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 N.C. 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561836
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/276/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 S.E. 2d 204",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 N.C. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4710415
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/308/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 S.E. 2d 921",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 N.C. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8557911
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/291/0275-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "404 U.S. 257",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6172366
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1971,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "260"
        },
        {
          "page": "432"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/404/0257-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 309,
    "char_count": 4014,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.856,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.570020854885844e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40236071678310203
    },
    "sha256": "8528da68a640c023a5dcf078ccc66d2d4d822a5faffaec23494ed2d8ae259295",
    "simhash": "1:4e4b0177142fbcf0",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:51.245722+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Arnold and Wells concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WOOTEN, JR."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORR, Judge.\nDefendant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. After a trial by jury, defendant was found guilty of the charge and sentenced to an active term of eighteen years.\nDefendant contends on appeal that the trial court erred in refusing to strike part of the testimony of investigating police officer, Ronald Melvin. Officer Melvin testified that defendant spoke with him after defendant\u2019s arrest and said that \u201chis [defendant\u2019s] lawyer wanted to plead him to six years to the offense and he wanted to know what he should do.\u201d This testimony, defendant asserts, is expressly prohibited by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1025, which provides: \u201cThe fact that the defendant or his counsel and the prosecutor engaged in plea discussions or made a plea arrangement may not be received in evidence against or in favor of the defendant in any criminal or civil action or administrative proceedings.\u201d We are persuaded by defendant\u2019s argument.\nThe validity of plea negotiations was recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 30 L.Ed. 2d 427 (1971), which held, \u201c[t]he disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called \u2018plea bargaining,\u2019 is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged.\u201d 404 U.S. at 260, 30 L.Ed. 2d at 432. See State v. Slade, 291 N.C. 275, 229 S.E. 2d 921 (1976).\nThe North Carolina Legislature adopted the U.S. Supreme Court\u2019s rationale in 1973, formalizing the procedures for \u201cplea bargaining\u201d by enacting N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1021 through \u00a7 15A-1026. State v. Slade, 291 N.C. 275, 229 S.E. 2d 921.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1025 was designed to facilitate plea discussions and agreements by protecting both defendants and prosecuting officials from being \u201cpenalized for engaging in practices which are consistent with the objectives of the criminal justice system.\u201d \u00a7 3.4 ABA Standards on Pleas of Guilty, p. 78, March 1968; American Law Institute, A Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure \u2014Tentative Draft No. 5, Article 350.7 (1972). N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1025 (1983).\nIn the present case, the plea bargain discussed in Officer Melvin\u2019s testimony was negotiated by defendant\u2019s counsel and the prosecutor. Consequently, these negotiations were explicitly protected by N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1025 from admission at trial.\nAlthough admission of erroneous testimony does not automatically justify a new trial, on these facts we believe such action is necessary. Responsible Citizens v. City of Asheville, 308 N.C. 255, 302 S.E. 2d 204 (1983); Board of Education v. Lamm, 276 N.C. 487, 173 S.E. 2d 281 (1970).\nDefendant entered a plea of not guilty to the charge of assault with intent to kill. The admission of evidence that defendant was considering pleading guilty to the charge and accepting a six year prison term was highly prejudicial to his case and potentially influenced the jury verdict. Therefore, we vacate defendant\u2019s sentence and remand this case for a new trial.\nDefendant raises additional assignments of error on appeal. After a review of the record, however, we conclude these assignments are without merit and decline to discuss them.\nNew trial.\nJudges Arnold and Wells concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ORR, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.",
      "John P. Edwards, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHNNY WOOTEN, JR.\nNo. 868SC1252\n(Filed 21 July 1987)\nCriminal Law 8 22\u2014 evidence of plea bargain \u2014 admission prejudicial error\nThe admission of an officer\u2019s testimony that defendant told him that \u201chis lawyer wanted to plead him to six years to the offense and he wanted to know what he should do\u201d violated the statute prohibiting evidence of plea bargaining, N.C.G.S. \u00a7 15A-1025, and constituted prejudicial error.\nAPPEAL by defendant from Llewellyn, Judge. Judgment entered 26 June 1986 in Superior Court, WAYNE County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 5 May 1987.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Douglas A. Johnston, for the State.\nJohn P. Edwards, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0481-01",
  "first_page_order": 509,
  "last_page_order": 511
}