{ "id": 2217691, "name": "STATE v. J. Q. ADAMS", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Adams", "decision_date": "1927-04-20", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "581", "last_page": "582", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "193 N.C. 581" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C.", "id": 9292, "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "163 N. C., 394", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "156 N. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11269942 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/156/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "121 N. C., 682", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653910 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0682-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 885", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652347 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0885-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 N. C., 739", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654859 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/180/0739-01" ] }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 779", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659083 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0779-01" ] }, { "cite": "139 N. C., 362", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "122 N. C., 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658201 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/122/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 N. C., 487", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "155 N. C., 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652729 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/155/0485-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 261, "char_count": 3304, "ocr_confidence": 0.471, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.782479895825172e-07, "percentile": 0.8352558392400483 }, "sha256": "a46c9fdfa6f515fc872ab10d9e5d73ca654db8f0897b1633b38565eea8c0da85", "simhash": "1:19ffee883c21d7fd", "word_count": 566 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:08:43.639996+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. J. Q. ADAMS." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Brogden, J.\nThe defendant did not testify in bis own bebalf, but bis wife, among other witnesses, testified in bis bebalf. Upon cross-examination of tbe wife, tbe solicitor asked ber tbe following question, referring to ber busband, tbe defendant: (Q.) \u201cTbat wasn\u2019t tbe first time be bad been up, was it?\u201d (A.) \u201cNo, sir; because I thought be bas been jerked up more times than one unjust.\u201d\nTbe effect of tbis evidence was to put before tbe jury tbe fact tbat tbe defendant bad previously been charged with or arrested for crime. For all practical purposes, tbis amounted to proving tbe bad character of tbe defendant by-proof of specific acts, or impeaching bis character when be bad not testified in bis own bebalf.\nIn S. v. Holly, 155 N. C., 485, tbe Court bas held tbat a defendant charged with crime may offer evidence of bis good character, and thereupon tbe State may offer evidence of bis bad character, \u201cbut cannot, by cross-examination or otherwise, offer evidence as to particular acts of misconduct.\u201d Tbis rule is both sound and salutary, for tbe reason tbat it obviates a mass of collateral questions which would interminably prolong trials and inevitably result in drawing tbe minds of tbe jurors far afield from tbe merit of tbe case. S. v. Bullard, 100 N. C., 487; Marcom v. Adams, 122 N. C., 222; Coxe v. Singleton, 139 N. C., 362; S. v. Murdock, 183 N. C., 779; S. v. Colson, ante, 236; S. v. Canup, 180 N. C., 739.\nTbe evidence was incompetent in another aspect, for tbe reason tbat tbe wife cannot testify against tbe busband in a criminal action of tbis nature. It cannot be successfully maintained tbat tbe testimony complained of was \u201cnot against tbe busband,\u201d because it tended directly to impeach tbe husband\u2019s character. S. v. Harbison, 94 N. C., 885; S. v. Raby, 121 N. C., 682; Grant v. Mitchell, 156 N. C., 15; Powell v. Strickland, 163 N. C., 394; S. v. Aswell and Smith, ante, 399.\nThere are other serious exceptions in tbe record, but, as a new trial must be awarded, they will not be discussed, as they may not occur at tbe subsequent trial.\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "Brogden, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.", "Folger & Folger for defendaovt." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. J. Q. ADAMS.\n(Filed 20 April, 1927.)\n1. Ci\u2019iminal Daw \u2014 Evidence\u2014Character\u2014Impeaching Evidence.\nWhere a defendant has not testified in his own behalf, his general character has not been put in issue, and it is reversible error for his wife to'testify against it as to particular instances.\n2. Cx\u2019inxinal Daw \u2014 Evidence\u2014Impeaching Evidence \u2014 Husband and Wife.\nUpon the trial of an assault with attempt to commit rape, testimony of the defendant\u2019s wife in effect that he had theretofore been several times arrested for a criminal offense, is erroneously admitted as tending to impeach his character in a criminal action.\nCriminal action, tried before H. L. Godioin, Emergency Judge, at November Special Term, 1926, of Surry.\nThe defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging rape. The verdict of the jury was, \u201cGuilty of assault and attempt to commit rape,\u201d and thereupon the verdict was entered upon the record of the court as \u201cGuilty of assault with intent to commit rape.\u201d\nFrom judgment, sentencing tbe defendant to tbe State\u2019s prison for a term of ten years, be appealed, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nFolger & Folger for defendaovt." }, "file_name": "0581-01", "first_page_order": 659, "last_page_order": 660 }