{ "id": 8614170, "name": "STATE v. OSCAR ABERNETHY ARMSTRONG", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Armstrong", "decision_date": "1950-11-29", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "727", "last_page": "729", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "232 N.C. 727" } ], "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": "35 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275488 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/35/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 N.C. 621", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698551 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/70/0621-01" ] }, { "cite": "75 N.C. 466", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8697863 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/75/0466-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S.E. 394", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N.C. 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653946 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "180 S.E. 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N.C. 340", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8605966 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0340-01" ] }, { "cite": "188 S.E. 111", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 647", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628176 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0647-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 S.E. 2d 449", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "224 N.C. 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S.E. 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N.C. 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 342, "char_count": 4208, "ocr_confidence": 0.463, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.358948604623467e-07, "percentile": 0.9435573270874094 }, "sha256": "0f001f8d2a767bde7fd995353d6003ad9d945590d744707bf4f0c862cd23a21f", "simhash": "1:5da3556cf0f59b68", "word_count": 715 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case." ], "parties": [ "STATE v. OSCAR ABERNETHY ARMSTRONG." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe denial of any impeachment of the State\u2019s only eye-witness to the fatal assault necessitates another hearing. It is always open to a defendant to challenge the credibility of the witnesses offered by the prosecution who testify against him. S. v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604.\nWhat could be more effective for the purpose than to impeach the mentality or the intellectual grasp of the witness ? If his interest, bias, indelicate way of life, insobriety and general bad reputation in the community may be shown as bearing upon his unworthiness of belief, why not his imbecility, want of understanding, or moronic compre-tension, which go more directly to the point? S. v. Ham, 224 N.C. 128, 29 S.E. 2d 449; S. v. Witherspoon, 210 N.C. 647, 188 S.E. 111; S. v. Vernon, 208 N.C. 340, 180 S.E. 590; S. v. Rollins, 113 N.C. 722, 18 S.E. 394; Isler v. Dewey, 75 N.C. 466; S. v. Ketchey, 70 N.C. 621; Bailey v. Poole, 35 N.C. 404; Stansbury\u2019s N. C. Evidence, sec. 127, p. 245, note 66. That which may be shown indirectly may also be shown directly. The law favors directness over indirectness; simplicity over complexity; brevity over prolixity; clarity over obscurity; substance over form. There is no virtue in the long phrase when a short one will do just as well. The courtroom is not the home of redundancy or circumlocution. Conciseness is the keynote there.\nWhen a witness goes upon the stand he subjects himself to cross-examination which may take the form of self-depreciation or the depreciation of other witnesses. S. v. Beal, supra, and cases there cited. Here, there was no suggestion of any claim of professional privilege or immunity in respect of Dr. Williston\u2019s proposed testimony; and none could be made in respect of the proposed testimony of the witness Robert Burrus. It follows that error was committed in excluding the proposed evidence.\nNew trial.\nJohnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.", "Ernest B. Warren and 0. A. Warren for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. OSCAR ABERNETHY ARMSTRONG.\n(Filed 29 November, 1950.)\nCriminal Law \u00a7 42e\u2014\nDefendant may show by competent evidence that a witness for the State is an imbecile or moron for the purpose of challenging the credibility of such witness.\nJOHNSON, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.\nAppeal by defendant from Bennett, Special Judge, March Term, 1950, of GrAS^ON.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendant with the murder and slaying of his wife, Lucille Armstrong.\nIt is in evidence that the defendant slew bis wife on the night of 30 August, 1949, by striking her several times over the head with a piece \u25a0of iron.\nThe only eye-witness to the slaying was Betty Clinton, who also went by the name of Betty Roberson. As the State\u2019s principal witness, she testified that she saw the defendant approach his wife from behind and strike her over the head three times with a rusty piece of iron about as long as one\u2019s arm. The defendant\u2019s wife died in the hospital about four hours later.\nOn cross-examination, the witness seemed to get confused about where she was when she witnessed the assault and the visibility of the night. At one place in the record she says: \u201cIt was awfully dark and I was about three blocks from her.\u201d At another place she says, \u201cThe moon was shining that night.\u201d\nDr. T. H. Williston, who saw the deceased on the night of the homicide, testified for the prosecution, and stated on cross-examination that Laura Clinton (presumably Betty Clinton) had been a patient of his, and if allowed to testify, would have said: \u201cI would classify her as a low-class moron, equivalent of a nine-year-old child.\u201d Exception to \u25a0exclusion.\nRobert Burrus, another witness for the State, if permitted, would have testified on cross-examination: \u201cI would say she (Betty Roberson or Betty Clinton) is a moron or imbecile, has the mind of a child, say \u25a0about 10 or 12 years old.\u201d Exception to exclusion.\nVerdict: Guilty of manslaughter.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison for a term of not less than 12 nor more than 14 years.\nThe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nErnest B. Warren and 0. A. Warren for defendant." }, "file_name": "0727-01", "first_page_order": 775, "last_page_order": 777 }