{
  "id": 8572647,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORRIS ROBINSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robinson",
  "decision_date": "1967-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "271",
  "last_page": "273",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 N.C. 271"
    }
  ],
  "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": "61 S.E. 2d 608",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8610308
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "125 S.E. 2d 899",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "257 N.C. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8568113
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/257/0404-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 362",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 N.C. 679",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565618
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/269/0679-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 S.E. 2d 230",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 N.C. 329",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601357
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/224/0329-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 455,
    "char_count": 6737,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4899357673485234e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8084386387005574
    },
    "sha256": "11aa3fcfb72cfe89f8aaabe9f2df7edf3b6c10710819b0883ca905492e585154",
    "simhash": "1:1a918a2c5fed255a",
    "word_count": 1150
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:31:35.058336+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORRIS ROBINSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe statement of facts discloses the sufficiency of the evidence to withstand defendant\u2019s motion for nonsuit, and a careful consideration of each of defendant\u2019s assignments of error discloses no prejudicial error.\nOn cross-examination, after defendant had stated positively that his criminal record consisted of only one conviction of larceny and one conviction of assault, over his objection, the solicitor elicited from him the admission that he had also been convicted of store-breaking and larceny, larceny of an automobile, hit and run, operating a motor vehicle without an operator\u2019s license, larceny of automobile tires, trespass and larceny, and simple assault. Defendant\u2019s contention that the State was bound by his first statement that he had been convicted only of larceny and assault is without merit. The solicitor had the right \u201cto sift the witness.\u201d State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E. 2d 230. For the purpose of impeachment, defendant was subject to cross-examination as to convictions for prior criminal offenses. State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E. 2d 362. Had defendant denied that he had been convicted of the additional charges when the solicitor questioned him about them, his denial could not have been contradicted by the record of his convictions, State v. King, supra; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence \u00a7 48 (2d Ed., 1963). Defendant, however, admitted the convictions.\nDefendant\u2019s assignment of error 14-A, which is based upon a broad side exception, involves three full pages of the charge dealing with the law of self-defense; An assignment of error must be based upon an exception which points out some specific part of the charge as erroneous, and an exception to a portion of a charge embracing a number of propositions is insufficient if anyone of the propositions is correct. Doss v. Sewell, 257 N.C. 404, 125 S.E. 2d 899; State v. Lambe, 232 N.C. 570, 61 S.E. 2d 608. We have, however, considered the entire charge. In it we find no error which, in our opinion, could reasonably be supposed to have prejudiced defendant.\nIn the trial, we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "T. W. Bruton, Attorney\u2022 General; Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.",
      "Peter H. Gerns for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. MORRIS ROBINSON.\n(Filed 13 December, 1967.)\n1. Homicide \u00a7 30\u2014\nEvidence in this case held sufficient to be submitted to the jury on the issue of defendant\u2019s guilt of murder in the second degree.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 85\u2014\nWhere a defendant takes the stand as a witness, he is subject to cross-examination as to convictions for prior criminal offenses for the purpose of impeachment.\nS. Same\u2014\nWhere defendant, on cross-examination, states positively that his criminal record consists of only two convictions, the State may question defendant further and may properly elicit from him, for purposes of impeachment, that he had also been convicted of other offenses, subject, however, to the qualification that had defendant denied the additional convictions the denial could not be contradicted.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 163\u2014\nAn assignment of error to a portion of the charge containing a number of propositions must fail if the charge is correct as to any one or more of them.\nAppeal by defendant from Froneberger, J., 6 February 1967 Special Criminal Session of Mecklenbueg. Certiorari allowed 20 September 1967.\nDefendant was tried and convicted upon a bill of indictment which charged that he did unlawfully, willfully, feloniously, and with malice, kill and murder Richard N. Adams. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show:\nOn Saturday, 22 October 1966, at about 12:46 a.m., 250 persons were at the Hi-Fi Country Club in Charlotte, where a band was playing. Richard N. Adams was standing beside the air conditioner and William Chisholm, the operator of the club, was standing about 12 feet from Adams. Chisholm observed defendant cross the room, walk up to Adams and, without a word, shoot him in the left chest. As a result of the bullet wound, Adams died from a massive hemorrhage. Chisholm, who had seen Adams do nothing, grabbed defendant and asked why he shot Adams. Defendant, without replying, broke away from him and ran toward the door. As Chisholm pursued him two Charlotte policemen, R. E. Simmons and T. C. Bar-ret, who also worked as security officers at the Hi-Fi Club, came through the door. Chisholm told them to arrest defendant, that he had just shot a man. The two officers took defendant into custody and removed from his right front pocket a .22 caliber pistol containing one spent bullet. After the arrest, a woman, who falsely represented herself to be defendant\u2019s wife, demanded permission to talk to him. She asked defendant what had happened, and he replied that he had to shoot someone. In answer to her inquiry why he had shot \u201cthis person,\u201d defendant \u201csaid that this person had taken $30.00 from him and he was not letting any person take his money and get away with it.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s evidence tended to show that at the time of the shooting Adams was at a table with four or five others. Ten minutes before the shooting Adams had been sitting there cleaning his nails with a knife. Defendant, testifying in his own behalf, gave this version of the shooting: He went over to Adams\u2019 table and asked for money which Adams owed him. Adams said that he was not going to give defendant any more money, and they argued about it 5-10 minutes. Defendant then left and visited several other tables, passing and repassing Adams\u2019 table a number of times. When Adams told him to quit walking by his table, defendant passed on without comment. He returned in a short time, however, to tell Adams that he had paid his entrance fee and that he would walk through the aisle as much as he liked. Defendant then renewed his demands for money. Adams again refused to pay him and ordered him away from the table. Defendant leaned across the table toward Adams and the two cursed each other for two or three minutes during which time Adams remained seated. However, \"he got mad and that is when he went in his pocket. ... He did not get quite out of his chair, at that particular moment. When he brought his hand out of his pocket he started up. I saw a knife in his hand. . . . The pistol came from my pocket. I went into my pocket to get the pistol because he went to his pocket. ... I know his reputation, it is violent. I was standing up at the time that I fired the -pistol. After the shooting ... I did not move for ... a few seconds. I then stepped over Adams, I came back down the aisle. . . . The officers stopped me at the front door.\u201d\nThe jury found defendant guilty of murder in the second degree as charged in the bill of indictment. From the prison sentence imposed, he appealed.\nT. W. Bruton, Attorney\u2022 General; Ralph Moody, Deputy Attorney General, for the State.\nPeter H. Gerns for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0271-01",
  "first_page_order": 307,
  "last_page_order": 309
}