{ "id": 8574745, "name": "STATE v. SOPHENIA RAY GOODSON", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Goodson", "decision_date": "1968-02-28", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "128", "last_page": "130", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "273 N.C. 128" } ], "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": "153 S.E. 2d 362", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 679", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565618 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0679-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 803", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "484" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619002 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "729" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "197" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 309", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625162 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "312" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0309-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 341, "char_count": 5025, "ocr_confidence": 0.582, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.352397298422415e-07, "percentile": 0.9183867476443607 }, "sha256": "c9775d0dedb584e094a0f4c1a842b4099a8e4fdac287fe807869d7dc4768afca", "simhash": "1:e7c7193b56277839", "word_count": 831 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:52:42.272754+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. SOPHENIA RAY GOODSON." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Pee Cueiam.\nA State\u2019s witness, Patsy Deloris Smith, testified she and Robert Edward Yeldell were walking on South Church Street, Charlotte, N. C., on the night of April 16, 1967, when Yeldell was shot twice and fell (mortally wounded) in the street. After testifying she \u201ccouldn\u2019t see who was doing it,\u201d she was permitted to testify on further direct examination over objections that defendant, who \u201cwas about six feet away\u201d and who had \u201ca big, old, shiny pistol in his hand,\u201d did the shooting. She testified she had not previously seen defendant and did not then know his name. In view of her subsequent testimony both on direct and cross-examination, it would seem the witness was confused when she testified she \u201ccouldn\u2019t see who was doing it,\u201d or that her intended meaning was that she did not know the man who was doing it. Be that as it may, the record does not support defendant\u2019s contention that the solicitor\u2019s further inquiries as to the facts constituted an impeachment by the State of its own witness.\nThe court admitted in evidence over defendant\u2019s objection a statement signed by Patsy Deloris Smith at the police station on the night of April 16, 1967, in which she described the circumstances under which, Yeldell was shot, gave a description of the person who did the shooting, and stated she could identify such person if she saw him again. The court instructed the jury .the statement was not to be considered as substantive evidence but only as evidence tending to corroborate, if the jury .found it did corroborate, the testimony of Patsy D'eloris Smith at trial. The admission of the statement for this limited purpose was\u2019 proper.\n\u25a0 There was ample evidence that defendant intentionally shot Yel-dell and thereby proximately caused his death. Defendant testified he shot Yeldell but contended that he did so in self-defense.\nDefendant did not- bring forward the assignment of error based upon his exception- to the court\u2019s refusal to grant his motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit. He was well advised. There was ample evidence to require that the case be submitted to the jury.\nWhen cross-examining defendant, the solicitor was permitted, over objections by defendant, to question defendant as to whether he had been convicted of specific unrelated prior criminal offenses. Defendant admitted having been convicted in certain specific instances and deni\u00e9d having been convicted in others.\nAdmissions as to convictions of unrelated prior criminal offenses are not competent as substantive evidence but are competent as bearing upon defendant\u2019s credibility as a witness. Stansbury, North Carolina Evidence, Second Edition, \u00a7 112; State v. Sheffield, 251 N.C. 309, 312, 111 S.E. 2d 195, 197. No request was made that the court so instruct the jury. \u201cIt is a well recognized rule of procedure that when evidence competent for one purpose only and not for another is offered it is incumbent upon the objecting party to request the court to restrict the consideration-of the jury to that aspect of the evidence which is competent.\u201d State v. Ray, 212 N.C. 725, 729, 194 S.E. 482, 484; Stansbury, op. cit, \u00a7 79; Rule 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 803. Compare State v. Norkett, 269 N.C. 679, 153 S.E. 2d 362, where a new trial was awarded because the court failed to comply with the defendant\u2019s request that such instruction be given.\nEach of defendant\u2019s assignments of-error has. been, considered. None discloses prejudicial error. Hence, the verdict and judgment will not be disturbed.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Pee Cueiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney General Bruton and Staff Attorneys Vanore and Shepherd for the State.", "William G. Robinson for defendant appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. SOPHENIA RAY GOODSON.\n(Filed 28 February, 1968.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 66\u2014\nTestimony of a witness on direct and on cross-examination sufficiently identifying defendant as tbe person who committed the crime is not rendered incompetent by her earlier testimony that she \u201ccould not see\u201d who fired the fatal shot, it appearing that the witness was merely referring to the fact that she did not know the defendant.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 86\u2014\nDefendant may be cross-examined as to his prior convictions of unrelated criminal offenses when the purpose of such examination is to impeach his credibility as a witness.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 95\u2014\nWhen evidence competent for one purpose and not for another is offered and admitted, it is incumbent upon the objecting party to request the court to restrict the consideration of the jury to that aspect of the evidence which is competent. Rule of Practice in the Supreme Court No. 28.\nAppeal by defendant from Bundy, J., August 7, 1967 Regular Schedule A Criminal Session of MECKLENBURG.\nDefendant was indicted for the murder of Robert Edward Yeldell. The State elected to prosecute for murder in the second degree. Evidence was offered by the State and by defendant. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. The court pronounced judgment imposing a prison sentence of ten years. Defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney General Bruton and Staff Attorneys Vanore and Shepherd for the State.\nWilliam G. Robinson for defendant appellant." }, "file_name": "0128-01", "first_page_order": 164, "last_page_order": 166 }