{
  "id": 8563287,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEWEY CLIFTON WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1967-01-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "299",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "269 N.C. 297"
    }
  ],
  "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": "62 S.E. 2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 727",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614170
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "728"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0727-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 S.E. 2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "255 N.C. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569979
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/255/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 327,
    "char_count": 4772,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.573,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.855903726229997e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8410407324905815
    },
    "sha256": "5aff70ca5a63cc34836dfd19e392b10849638dfdbb20070d62799331f1fd8ab9",
    "simhash": "1:80cba7e2a7d197f7",
    "word_count": 828
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:36:18.626474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEWEY CLIFTON WILSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER Cuexam.\nThe evidence of the prosecuting witness, if true, justified the conviction and sentence imposed upon defendant. He, however, denied his guilt of the crime charged and testified that his daughter had threatened to get rid of him because of his attempts to control her conduct. She had told him at least three times, he said, that she could \u201cmake up something\u201d which would \u201cput him away.\u201d Defendant offered as a witness his next door neighbor, Mrs. Mary Cook, who, inter alia, testified in the absence of the jury as follows:\n1. \u201cQ. Did Darlene at any time tell you anything about her father and mother making her do things or not?\n\u201cA. No, I don\u2019t believe. I can\u2019t remember any. I know several times she would say that she\u2019d have a lot more fun\nif her daddy wasn\u2019t at home; he was too tight on her.\n# # *\n2. \u201cQ. At any time did you hear Darlene say anything concerning getting rid of her daddy?\n\u201cA. That\u2019s about all, I think. She said she could have more fun if he was away, that she wished he would get time.\n3. \u201cQ. What\u2019s that?\n\u201cA. That she wished he would get time so she could be, she could be, she could go places and do more than she could with him at home. That\u2019s about all.\n4. \u201cQ. Was she up at your house frequently?\n\u201cA. Yes sir, she was up there right frequently.\u201d\nThe solicitor\u2019s objection to each of the above questions and answers was sustained. Defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to permit the jury to consider each question and answer. Whereupon, the court instructed the court reporter to \u201cread back to the jury\u201d \u25a0questions numbered 2, 3, and 4. She did so, and defendant excepted to the refusal of the court to permit Mrs. Cook to answer these \u25a0questions in person in the presence of the jury.\nThe Attorney General concedes that, if the above evidence of Mrs. Cook was properly admissible and material to the defense, defendant is entitled to a new trial under the ruling in State v. Payton, 255 N.C. 420, 121 S.E. 2d 608. In Payton, \u201cevidence vital to the State\u2019s case against the defendant was elicited from the State\u2019s witness in the absence of the jury. The court reporter relayed this evidence to the jury by reading her notes.\u201d In awarding a new trial, this Court said: \u201cThus the story of the witness went to the jury as hearsay. The defendant was entitled to have the jury hear the story from the witness herself and to observe her demeanor at the time she told it. This was a fundamental right.\u201d Id. at 420-21.\nThis defendant is no less entitled to have the jury hear the testimony of his witnesses and observe their demeanor. Mrs. Cook\u2019s testimony tended to show that Darlene Wilson was biased against her father and had a motive to get rid of him. It bore upon the credibility of the prosecutrix\u2019s declarations. It was, therefore, competent and material to defendant\u2019s defense. \u201cIt is always open to a defendant to challenge the credibility of the witnesses offered by the prosecution who testify against him.\u201d State v. Armstrong, 232 N.C. 727, 728, 62 S.E. 2d 50, 51.\nThe exclusion of the proffered testimony entitles defendant to a\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER Cuexam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T, W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.",
      "Robert A. \u25a0Merritt for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEWEY CLIFTON WILSON.\n(Filed 20 January, 1967.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 83\u2014\nA defendant is entitled to show that the prosecuting witness was biased or prejudiced against him for the purpose of challenging her credibility.\n2. Constitutional law \u00a7 SI\u2014\nWhere the court excludes the testimony of defendant\u2019s witness tending to show that the prosecuting witness was biased or prejudiced against him, the fact that the court thereafter has the court reporter read the testimony to the jury does not cure the error, since defendant is entitled to have the jury hear the testimony of his witness and observe her demeanor.\nAppeal by defendant from Latham, S.J., November 1963 Criminal Session of Guileord. Certiorari allowed.\nDefendant, represented by privately employed counsel, was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment charging him with incestuous relations with his 14-year-old daughter, Darlene Wilson. From a sentence of not less than 10 nor more than 15 years in the State\u2019s prison, defendant gave notice of appeal. At that time, however, he was indigent and unable to perfect his appeal because of his inability to pay his counsel. While serving the sentence imposed, defendant filed a petition for a post-conviction hearing under G.S. 15-217, et seq. On April 22, 1966, Judge Eugene G. Shaw conducted the hearing and directed Robert A. Merritt, Esq., defendant\u2019s court-appointed counsel, to undertake to perfect defendant\u2019s appeal. On October 20, 1966, we allowed certiorari and the appeal was heard on December 13, 1966.\nAttorney General T, W. Bruton and Deputy Attorney General Harry W. McGalliard for the State.\nRobert A. \u25a0Merritt for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 329,
  "last_page_order": 331
}