{ "id": 8615938, "name": "STATE v. JAMES P. NELSON, Jr.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Nelson", "decision_date": "1930-12-19", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "69", "last_page": "73", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "200 N.C. 69" } ], "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": "92 S. E., 499", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N. C., 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272456 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S. E., 219", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 780", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651787 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0780-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N. C., 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276670 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "198 N. C., 200", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602649 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/198/0200-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 3", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 537", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630610 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0537-01" ] }, { "cite": "143 S. E., 469", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N. C., 763", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631997 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0763-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S. E., 724", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N. C., 692", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612811 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0692-01" ] }, { "cite": "135 S. E., 32", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "192 N. C., 318", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621868 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/192/0318-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S. E., 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 N. C., 430", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8656577 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/183/0430-01" ] }, { "cite": "100 S. E., 615", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "178 N. C., 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/178/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 N. C., 585", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278936 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/85/0585-01" ] }, { "cite": "26 N. C., 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685627 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/26/0088-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 542, "char_count": 10877, "ocr_confidence": 0.444, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.31702826641418e-07, "percentile": 0.7890749615132002 }, "sha256": "e8e94ccd2f4155e8a56655aaec225d6f6cd7a6d1a1680fdffc74ce13d1172ddf", "simhash": "1:bea55d7b2e42d2b1", "word_count": 1879 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:40:42.579520+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. JAMES P. NELSON, Jr." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "BeogdbN, J.\nTbe paramount question of law presented by the record is whether the cross-examination of character witnesses for defendant was within the law.\nThe court instructed the jury in two instances that the type of cross-examination pursued was competent only to discredit or impeach the witness himself. In other instances no instruction whatever was given. Cross-examination of a witness is not a matter of privilege or grace, but a matter of right, and is one of the most effective means known to the law for the ascertainment of truth and for testing the soundness or fallacy of the declarations of a witness. Hence for this reason cross-examination must of necessity cover a wide range, and consequently trial courts are justified in permitting wide latitude in subjecting witnesses to proper legal tests.\nThe decisions of this State have recognized and approved various methods of impeaching witnesses \u2014 notably (1) by proof of bad character; (2) proof of materially inconsistent and contradictory statements; (3) by disproving statements made in court by testimony of other witnesses; (4) by cross-examination tending to show (a) that the witness had been convicted of a crime although evidence of mere accusation of crime is incompetent; (b) bias or fallacy; (c) animus, feeling, kinship or mental capacity; (d) lack of veracity or memory. S. v. O'Neale, 26 N. C., 88; S. v. Efler, 85 N. C., 585; Bank v. Pack, 178 N. C., 388, 100 S. E., 615; Rutledge v. Mfg. Co., 183 N. C., 430, 111 S. E., 774; S. v. Jeffreys, 192 N. C., 318, 135 S. E., 32; Milling Co. v. Highway Commission, 190 N. C., 692, 130 S. E., 724; Nichols v. Bradshaw, 195 N. C., 763, 143 S. E., 469; S. v. Maslin, 195 N. C., 537, 143 S. E., 3; Clay v. Connor, 198 N. C., 200; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278.\nThe primary purpose of impeachment is to reduce or discount the credibility of a witness for the purpose of inducing the jury to give less weight to his testimony in arriving at the ultimate facts in the case. It has been generally held that a character witness may be cross-examined with respect to the extent of his knowledge and acquaintance with the person in whose behalf he testifies or with regard to the sources of information upon which he bases his estimate of character. S. v. Perkins, 66 N. C., 126; S. v. Austin, 108 N. C., 780, 13 S. E., 219; S. v. Killian, 173 N. C., 792, 92 S. E., 499.\nApplying the rules of law to the facts, it is clear that the questions propounded to the witness on cross-examination were not intended to disparage the witness, but rather to put before the jury the opinion of the witness upon the charges against the defendant laid in the indictment. In other words, the effect of the cross-examination is to ask the witness, \u201cWould you have done what the defendant is charged in the bill of indictment for doing, or do you approve what the defendant is charged with doing?\u201d In effect this is requiring the witness to express an opinion upon the merits or demerits of the charge laid against the defendant. Indirectly these questions tended to elicit the opinion of witness that the defendant would be a man of bad character if he had done the things alleged against him.\nWe find no law broad enough and liberal enough to sustain the cross-examination complained of in this case, and the defendant is entitled to a\nNew trial.", "type": "majority", "author": "BeogdbN, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.", "John B. Slawter for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES P. NELSON, Jr.\n(Filed 19 December, 1930.)\nCriminal Law G r \u2014 A character witness may not be aslcetl on cross-examination whether he would commit the offense charged against the defendant.\nWhile cross-examination of a witness is very broad in its scope it will not be allowed to call for the opinion of a character witness upon the matter included in the determination of a controversy, as in this prosecution for false pretense, after the witness had only testified to the general character of the defendant charged with procuring a second note for the company for which he was an officer for the same debt and wrongfully using them both, a question asked on cross-examination if the witness would do the same thing is not for the purpose of impeaching him, but to place before the jury the witnesses\u2019 opinion upon the charge against the defendant laid in the indictment.\nCbiMinal action, tried before Harwood, Special Judge, at February Term, 1930, of Foesyti-i.\nThe defendant was indicted for false pretense. On or about 19 October, 1929, J. E. Jones bought an automobile from the Lindsay Fishel Buick Company. There was a balance of $552 due on the purchase price and said Jones executed a note for $552 and delivered the same to the defendant James P. Nelson, Jr., who was secretary and treasurer of the corporation. The maturity of the note was 11 January, 1930. Thereafter on 1 November, 1929, Jones was in the place of business of the Buick Company and Nelson approached him and asked him if he would give a new note to replace the old note for the reason that the company had not been able to discount the old note. Thereupon said Jones executed a note for $583.41 to the General Motors Acceptance Corporation, which said note included the $552 note and a premium on an insurance policy. Jones testified that Nelson promised to mail the old note to him that afternoon. About a week later Jones called Nelson over telephone and asked him to mail the old note and Nelson promised to do so. On 1 December Jones went to Nelson\u2019s place of business and asked Nelson for the old note, and Nelson stated that the note was in the file, and that he would mail it to Jones that afternoon.\nThere was further evidence tending to show that on or about 22 November, 1929, Nelson had taken the original note of Jones for $552 together with several other notes, and had them discounted at the Wachovia Bank and Trust Company and the proceeds credited to the corporation of which Nelson was an officer.\nThe Lindsay Fishel Puick Company was closed about 1 December. The defendant Nelson admitted that the original Jones note was not returned to Jones and was discounted at the bank, but that same was done by mistake, and that when he had discovered the mistake he attempted to get the note back so as to return it to Jones, but had been unable to do so before his company failed.\nThe defendant offered about sixteen witnesses who testified that he was a man of good character. The record shows substantially the following with reference to the testimony of nine of said character witnesses :\n1. Perry Hilts testified on direct examination as follows :\n\u201cI have known the defendant since 1920, and know his general reputation. It is good.\u2019\u2019 This was all the testimony given by said witness.\u201d\n(Question) : \u201cPlease state to his Honor and the jury whether or not you \u2014 not Nelson \u2014 in the conduct of your business, when a mail has given you a note for a deferred payment on an automobile and you took another note in lieu of it if you then discounted both of them for the one indebtedness?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir.\u201d\n(Question) : \u201cHave you e.ver done such a thing?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir.\u201d\nTo the foregoing questions and answers the defendant objected. The objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.\nThe court instructed the jury as follows: \u201cGentlemen of the jury, the answer of the witness to the question will be considered by you as bearing upon this man\u2019s character and reputation, and has nothing to do with the defendant in this ease.\u201d\n2. Hoyle 0. Ripple, witness for the defendant, testified as follows: \u201cI am practicing law in Winston-Salem, and have known the defendant about eight years. His general character is good.\u201d This was all the testimony given by the witness on direct examination.\nCross-examination is as follows: (Question) \u2014 \u201cDid you ever collect a debt of $550 against any man twice, knowingly?\u201d\nThereupon the court stated: \u201cThe answer of the witness may be considered by the jury as relating to the character and reputation of witness only.\u201d\n(Answer): \u201cNo, sir, I have never been that good a collector,, Mr. Graves.\u201d\n(Question) : \u201cDo you mean to say you would ever do such a thing as that?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir, I never said I would.\u201d\nTo the foregoing questions the defendant objected. The objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.\n3. Guy Scott, a witness for defendant, testified as follows on direct examination:\n\u201cI am a deputy sheriff of Forsytb County and have been for several years. I know the deiendant and know his general character. It is good.\u201d\nCross-examination was as follows:\n(Question) \u2014 \u201cWill you please tell his Honor and the jury whether you have ever collected the amount of $550 from a man twice, or got one note and discounted that and then got another note in lieu of that note, and discounted that one?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir, I have not.\u201d\nTo the foregoing questions the defendant objected. The objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.\n4. J. Erie'McMichael testified on direct examination as follows: \u201cI am clerk of the Superior Court of Forsyth County. I have known the defendant, James P. Nelson, since 1921. His general character is good.\u201d\nThis was all the testimony given by said witness on direct examination.\nCross-examination was as follows: \u201cI never saw these two notes. I think one of them passed through my office.\u201d (Question) : \u201cDid you ever when you had a man\u2019s note for $550 induce him to give you another note for $550 and collect on both of them?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir.\u201d\nTo the foregoing questions and answers the defendant objected. The objection was overruled and the defendant excepted.\n5. T. C. Cough, witness for defendant, on direct examination testified as follows: \u201cI am in the automobile business. I know the defendant. His general character is good.\u201d\nThe foregoing was all the testimony given by said witness on direct examination.\nCross-examination is as follows: (Question) \u2014 \u201cDo you sell automobiles?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cYes, sir.\u201d (Question) : \u201cBy the way, have you ever, since you were born or in the automobile business, sold an automobile and taken notes for deferred payments?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cYes, sir.\u201d (Question) : \u201cDid you ever induce a man, after he had executed one note, to give you another note for the same indebtedness and discount both of them?\u201d (Answer) : \u201cNo, sir, not as I know of.\u201d\nTo the foregoing questions the defendant objected. The objection was overruled and defendant excepted.\nThe examination of other witnesses was substantially similar to the foregoing.\nThere was a verdict of guilty, and the judgment of the court was that the defendant be confined in the State\u2019s prison for a term of three years, sentence to be suspended if the defendant should make good the note of E. E. Jones and pay to the school fund the sum of $2,500, and the cost of this action.\nFrom the foregoing judgment the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nJohn B. Slawter for defendant." }, "file_name": "0069-01", "first_page_order": 137, "last_page_order": 141 }