{ "id": 8625624, "name": "STATE v. C. W. KIRKMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Kirkman", "decision_date": "1951-12-12", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "670", "last_page": "671", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "234 N.C. 670" } ], "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": "131 A.L.R. 323", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "77 S.E. 295", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. 534", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271969 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0534-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 S.E. 2d 688", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 237", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0237-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 281, "char_count": 3910, "ocr_confidence": 0.498, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.626923425155603e-08, "percentile": 0.45072724317132 }, "sha256": "38fba6626748974b0e793441686f72d479f7108d2f79ca529d0850325f1b27ee", "simhash": "1:163444de4ea588f7", "word_count": 651 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:56.500685+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. C. W. KIRKMAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Devin, 0. J.\nThe evidence was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and to support the verdict and judgment thereon. S. v. Carroll, 226 N.C. 237, 37 S.E. 2d 688.\nThe defendant assigns error in the ruling of the court in admission of \u25a0the testimony of the State\u2019s witness, in the narration of the attendant \u25a0circumstances, that a second officer was called to assist in the arrest, but this would seem to corroborate the witness\u2019 testimony that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and in any event was not harmful. Also we think the exception to the evidence of the officer that in making the arrest he took from the defendant his pocket knife is untenable. Clearly, the officer after making the arrest was justified in relieving his prisoner of an article which might be used as a weapon. Exception on this score on the facts here disclosed cannot be sustained.\nThe defendant assigns as error that while the defendant was testifying, the State\u2019s witness Deputy Sheriff Wheeless \u201cmade a slight noise.\u201d Counsel for defendant objected that the State\u2019s witness was \u201cblowing like an adder.\u201d The record recites that thereupon \u201cthe court having heard no comment or sound from Mr. Wheeless, looked in his direction, and observing him in a fit of coughing, said, \u2018I don\u2019t believe the sheriff meant any intentional comment on the witness.\u2019 \u201d\nWe see nothing in the incident as shown by the record before us that would justify awarding a new trial. The conduct of a trial in the Superior Court, the preservation of order and the prevention of unfair tactics and behaviour on the part of witnesses and others must be left in large measure to the control and wise discretion of the presiding judge. Apparently the noise complained of here was not of sufficient moment to warrant action by the judge. S. v. Vann, 162 N.C. 534, 77 S.E. 295, 53 A.J. 55; 131 A.L.R. 323.\nThe defendant also noted exception to portions of the judge\u2019s charge to the jury in stating the contentions of the State on the evidence offered, but we see nothing in the matter or manner excepted to which may properly be regarded as prejudicial. Nor may the defendant justly complain that the court in stating the State\u2019s contentions referred to the place where the defendant was arrested as a \u201chang-out,\u201d in view of the defendant\u2019s admission, on cross-examination, of previous convictions constituting a lengthy catalogue of criminal offenses.\nIn the trial we find no error of which the defendant may justly complain.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Devin, 0. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Robert B. Broughton, Member of Staff, for the State.", "James W. Glontz and Silas B. Casey for defendant, appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. C. W. KIRKMAN.\n(Filed 12 December, 1951.)\n1. Automobiles \u00a7 SOd\u2014\nEvidence in tbis prosecution for drunken driving held sufficient to overrule nonsuit.\n2. Criminal law \u00a7 81c (3) \u2014\nException to tbe admission of evidence cannot justify a new trial in the absence of prejudice.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 50g\u2014\nThe preservation of order and the prevention of unfair tactics and behavior on the part of witnesses is within the sound discretion of the presiding judge, and sounds or coughing made by a deputy sheriff during the testimony of another witness held not prejudicial upon the facts of this case.\n4. Criminal Law7 \u00a7 53f\u2014\nThe court\u2019s reference to the place where defendant was arrested as a \u201chang-out\u201d in stating the State\u2019s contentions held not prejudicial in view of defendant\u2019s admission on cross-examination of previous convictions constituting a lengthy catalogue of criminal offenses.\nAppeal by defendant from Sharp, Special Judge, at April Term, 1951, of Guilford. No error.\nThe defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle on the highway while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. G.S. 14-387. There was verdict of guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing sentence the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan, Assistant Attorney-General Bruton, and Robert B. Broughton, Member of Staff, for the State.\nJames W. Glontz and Silas B. Casey for defendant, appellant." }, "file_name": "0670-01", "first_page_order": 716, "last_page_order": 717 }