{ "id": 8570035, "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD STEGMANN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stegmann", "decision_date": "1975-04-14", "docket_number": "No. 38", "first_page": "638", "last_page": "664", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "286 N.C. 638" } ], "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": "408 U.S. 939", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1782720, 1782785, 1782912, 1782723, 1782762, 1782831, 1782832, 1782961, 1782865, 1782833, 1782835, 1782868, 1782941, 1782933, 1782936, 1782777, 1782813 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/408/0939-13", "/us/408/0939-10", "/us/408/0939-06", "/us/408/0939-16", "/us/408/0939-01", "/us/408/0939-05", "/us/408/0939-02", "/us/408/0939-08", "/us/408/0939-17", "/us/408/0939-07", "/us/408/0939-12", "/us/408/0939-14", "/us/408/0939-03", "/us/408/0939-15", "/us/408/0939-04", "/us/408/0939-11", "/us/408/0939-09" ] }, { "cite": "362 U.S. 917", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6177710, 6177582, 6177457, 6177331, 6177203, 6177852 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/362/0657-05", "/us/362/0657-04", "/us/362/0657-03", "/us/362/0657-02", "/us/362/0657-01", "/us/362/0657-06" ] }, { "cite": "227 N.C. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626232 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/227/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "47 S.E. 2d 234", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628101 ], "year": 1948, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S.E. 2d 477", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "256 N.C. 258", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572312 ], "year": 1962, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/256/0258-01" ] }, { "cite": "156 S.E. 2d 265", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 276", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563537 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0276-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 S.E. 2d 474", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "217 N.C. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8608545 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/217/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "130 S.E. 635", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1925, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "190 N.C. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611723 ], "year": 1925, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/190/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "187 S.E. 561", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "210 N.C. 452", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626939 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/210/0452-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 851", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N.C. 539", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624412 ], "year": 1931, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0539-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 S.E. 414", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1896, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "118 N.C. 1177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654712 ], "year": 1896, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/118/1177-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 S.E. 145", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "162 N.C. 243", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11270701 ], "year": 1913, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/162/0243-01" ] }, { "cite": "141 S.E. 468", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1928, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "195 N.C. 47", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627666 ], "year": 1928, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/195/0047-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611421 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "195 S.E. 72", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626566 ], "year": 1938, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 S.E. 793", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 N.C. 768", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658169 ], "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "136 S.E. 730", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 236", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217712 ], "year": 1927, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0236-01" ] }, { "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 740", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "226 N.C. 601", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8623074 ], "year": 1946, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/226/0601-01" ] }, { "cite": "90 S.E. 2d 225", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "243 N.C. 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622043 ], "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/243/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "186 S.E. 2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 N.C. 376", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572062 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/280/0376-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "123" }, { "page": "122" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568737 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "434" }, { "page": "437" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 803", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 90", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562465 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0090-01" ] }, { "cite": "203 S.E. 2d 38", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "285 N.C. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8561675 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/285/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 S.E. 2d 721", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "284 N.C. 625", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564742 ], "year": 1974, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/284/0625-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 19", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566644 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 N.C. 783", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "year": 1961, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "810" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "6 S.E. 2d 521", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "216 N.C. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8612186 ], "year": 1940, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "77 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "238 N.C. 222", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602900 ], "year": 1953, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/238/0222-01" ] }, { "cite": "82 S.E. 2d 762", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8603731 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 A.L.R. 2d 236", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "94 S.E. 2d 402", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 407", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219491 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0407-01" ] }, { "cite": "62 S.E. 2d 500", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 79", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8598668 ], "year": 1950, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0079-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S.E. 2d 899", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607032 ], "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 2d 668", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "244 N.C. 109", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2219440 ], "year": 1956, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/244/0109-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 S.E. 972", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "168 N.C. 173", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658175 ], "year": 1914, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/168/0173-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 S.E. 2d 432", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "252 N.C. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8621661 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/252/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.Ct. 2873", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "33 L.Ed. 2d 761", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 S.E. 2d 572", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 18", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565554 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0018-01" ] }, { "cite": "45 S.E. 2d 542", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "228 N.C. 417", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626622 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/228/0417-01" ] }, { "cite": "55 S.E. 2d 466", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "230 N.C. 710", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632094 ], "year": 1949, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/230/0710-01" ] }, { "cite": "86 S.E. 2d 424", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "241 N.C. 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616136 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1955, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/241/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569066 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "153 S.E. 2d 883", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "270 N.C. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8566295 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/270/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 576", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565553 ], "year": 1967, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0576-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.E. 2d 664", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 N.C. 107", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562829 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/282/0107-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S.E. 2d 539", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 589", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559660 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0589-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 S.E. 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 N.C. 890", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275416 ], "year": 1890, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/107/0890-01" ] }, { "cite": "64 S.Ct. 52", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "88 L.Ed. 445", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "320 U.S. 749", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6154073, 6154131, 6154102, 6154023 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/320/0749-02", "/us/320/0749-04", "/us/320/0749-03", "/us/320/0749-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 S.E. 2d 594", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 167", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602037 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0167-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.Ct. 717", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 L.Ed. 2d 707", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "365 U.S. 830", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6203232, 6202818, 6202405, 6203045, 6202223, 6202580 ], "year": 1961, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/365/0830-06", "/us/365/0830-04", "/us/365/0830-02", "/us/365/0830-05", "/us/365/0830-01", "/us/365/0830-03" ] }, { "cite": "116 S.E. 2d 429", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "253 N.C. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8622810 ], "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/253/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "103 S.E. 2d 861", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 447", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624346 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0447-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 476", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "277 N.C. 680", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567347 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/277/0680-01" ] }, { "cite": "91 S.Ct. 2290", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "29 L.Ed. 2d 860", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "403 U.S. 948", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 12043280, 12043226 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/403/0948-02", "/us/403/0948-01" ] }, { "cite": "174 S.E. 2d 503", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "276 N.C. 703", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563378 ], "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/276/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 839", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559236 ], "year": 1969, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "191 S.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "S.C.", "case_ids": [ 2071644 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/sc/191/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.Ct. 1805", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 L.Ed. 2d 130", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "406 U.S. 928", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6230624, 6227109, 6228139, 6227471, 6229457, 6230354, 6229140, 6228788, 6228470, 6230873, 6230043, 6227836, 6229790 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/406/0928-12", "/us/406/0928-01", "/us/406/0928-04", "/us/406/0928-02", "/us/406/0928-08", "/us/406/0928-11", "/us/406/0928-07", "/us/406/0928-06", "/us/406/0928-05", "/us/406/0928-13", "/us/406/0928-10", "/us/406/0928-03", "/us/406/0928-09" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 206", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 689", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8572032 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0689-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S.E. 1043", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "150 N.C. 817", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11273091 ], "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/150/0817-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 2d 232", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "223 N.C. 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8616001 ], "year": 1943, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/223/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "178 S.E. 2d 820", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "278 N.C. 88", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559700 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/278/0088-01" ] }, { "cite": "169 S.E. 2d 875", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "878" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "275 N.C. 550", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8559188 ], "year": 1969, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "553" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/275/0550-01" ] }, { "cite": "67 N.C. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2092654 ], "year": 1872, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/67/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 N.C. 346", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8693849 ], "year": 1824, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/24/0346-01" ] }, { "cite": "81 S.E. 2d 364", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1954, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "368" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "240 N.C. 171", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596105 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1954, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/240/0171-01" ] }, { "cite": "185 S.E. 2d 174", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "279 N.C. 663", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8571959 ], "year": 1971, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/279/0663-01" ] }, { "cite": "475 F. 2d 861", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 281626 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/475/0861-01" ] }, { "cite": "343 F. Supp. 978", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F. Supp.", "case_ids": [ 3518041 ], "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f-supp/343/0978-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 S.E. 499", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "173 N.C. 792", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272456 ], "year": 1917, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/173/0792-01" ] }, { "cite": "17 A.L.R. 3d 327", "category": "reporters:specialty", "reporter": "A.L.R. 3d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "147 S.E. 2d 210", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 N.C. 774", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8563604 ], "year": 1966, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/266/0774-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 897", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 N.C. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8560392 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/274/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557660 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "56 S.Ct. 960", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "80 L.Ed. 1402", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "298 U.S. 682", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1486212, 1486372, 1486184, 1486288, 1486421 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/298/0682-03", "/us/298/0682-02", "/us/298/0682-04", "/us/298/0682-01", "/us/298/0682-05" ] }, { "cite": "183 S.E. 898", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "209 N.C. 404", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2221577 ], "year": 1936, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/209/0404-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 N.C. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275052 ], "year": 1846, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/28/0305-01" ] }, { "cite": "87 N.C. 507", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8696433 ], "year": 1882, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/87/0507-01" ] }, { "cite": "28 S.E. 492", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "121 N.C. 579", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653623 ], "year": 1897, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/121/0579-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 S.Ct. 670", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "4 L.Ed. 2d 738", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed. 2d", "year": 1960, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624134 ], "year": 1959, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0177-01" ] }, { "cite": "118 S.E. 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N.C. 22", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652596 ], "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0022-01" ] }, { "cite": "68 S.Ct. 69", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "S. Ct.", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 L.Ed. 349", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "332 U.S. 764", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 365413, 365451, 365068, 364909, 365233, 364989 ], "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/332/0764-03", "/us/332/0764-06", "/us/332/0764-01", "/us/332/0764-02", "/us/332/0764-05", "/us/332/0764-04" ] }, { "cite": "43 S.E. 2d 84", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1947, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "280 F. 2d 472", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2017271 ], "weight": 2, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "475" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/280/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "284 F. 2d 310", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 2006376 ], "pin_cites": [ { "page": "314" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/284/0310-01" ] }, { "cite": "259 N.E. 2d 195", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[Y]ou have to use your imagination. There are many things in a court of law that can't be introduced.\" Held, improper but harmless because of adequate curative instructions." } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "357 Mass. 356", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "case_ids": [ 296125 ], "year": 1970, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"[Y]ou have to use your imagination. There are many things in a court of law that can't be introduced.\" Held, improper but harmless because of adequate curative instructions." } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/mass/357/0356-01" ] }, { "cite": "354 F. 2d 715", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 845662 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1965, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "719" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/354/0715-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S.E. 2d 170", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "233 N.C. 218", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602130 ], "year": 1951, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/233/0218-01" ] }, { "cite": "245 P. 2d 633", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "P.2d", "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "649", "parenthetical": "\"[Argument which] broadly implies the prosecution is possessed of much- evidence tending to show guilt that has not been introduced, is erroneous and prejudicial\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "111 Cal. App. 2d 650", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cal. App. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2234606 ], "year": 1952, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "676-677", "parenthetical": "\"[Argument which] broadly implies the prosecution is possessed of much- evidence tending to show guilt that has not been introduced, is erroneous and prejudicial\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/cal-app-2d/111/0650-01" ] }, { "cite": "230 F. 2d 165", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 71387 ], "year": 1956, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"We could have made thirty or forty counts in this thing, if you had wanted to be here a couple of weeks trying this lawsuit\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/230/0165-01" ] }, { "cite": "257 F. 2d 950", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 454835 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"I could probably have fifty people in here who would show that [defendant] isn't a good character\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/257/0950-01" ] }, { "cite": "102 S.E. 2d 413", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"I tell you I could get a number of people, at least one hundred, to come in here and testify to his bad character\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "248 N.C. 63", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619325 ], "year": 1958, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "\"I tell you I could get a number of people, at least one hundred, to come in here and testify to his bad character\"" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/248/0063-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S.E. 657", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "658" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "193 N.C. 581", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217691 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1927, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "582" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0581-01" ] }, { "cite": "114 N.C., 879", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651760 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/114/0879-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 N.C., 893", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652646 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/104/0893-01" ] }, { "cite": "92 N.C., 756", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275070 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/92/0756-01" ] }, { "cite": "66 N.C., 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276670 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/66/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "25 N.C., 296", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690849 ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/25/0296-01" ] }, { "cite": "193 S.E. 405", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "212 N.C. 386", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611421 ], "year": 1937, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0386-01" ] }, { "cite": "117 S.E. 793", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 3, "year": 1923, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "185 N.C. 768", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8658169 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1923, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "770" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0768-01" ] }, { "cite": "157 S.E. 2d 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "118" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "271 N.C. 500", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8565129 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "507" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/271/0500-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 L.Ed. 168", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L. Ed.", "weight": 3, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "174" }, { "page": "176" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "335 U.S. 469", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6159942 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1948, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "477" }, { "page": "219" }, { "page": "480" }, { "page": "220" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/us/335/0469-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 113", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 422", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568737 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0422-01" ] }, { "cite": "212 S.E. 2d 125", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "286 N.C. 509", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569066 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/286/0509-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S.E. 2d 787", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "283 N.C. 57", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8557660 ], "year": 1973, "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/283/0057-01" ] }, { "cite": "111 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "12" } ], "opinion_index": 1 }, { "cite": "251 N.C. 177", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624134 ], "year": 1959, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "192" } ], "opinion_index": 1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/251/0177-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 2013, "char_count": 60219, "ocr_confidence": 0.58, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.209274838958445e-07, "percentile": 0.8663730974276879 }, "sha256": "33ab14076d9751eacb5b48b49424ef86881e7cead3fa1c1fc7ea41dcd9963ef8", "simhash": "1:872d14aab42a3cfd", "word_count": 10300 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:24:13.966890+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Chief Justice Sharp dissents as to the death sentence and votes to remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 434, 212 S.E. 2d 113, 123 (1975).", "Justice Copeland dissents as to death sentence and votes to remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422 at 437, 212 S.E. 2d 113 at 122 (1975)." ], "parties": [ "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD STEGMANN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "HUSKINS, Justice.\nThe trial court admitted over objection the testimony of fourteen character witnesses offered by the State to show the good character and reputation of the prosecuting witness. Defendant\u2019s second and third assignments of error are based upon admission of this testimony. Following is a brief narration of the evidence in question.\nRoger Frazee, manager of Aetna Finance Company where Mrs. Ruth Kendall had been working for fourteen months, testified that he knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived and that it was outstanding.\nGilda Smith testified she had known Ruth Kendall for over four years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived and that it was \u201cvery good, excellent.\u201d\nReverend Clarence L. Hopkins testified he had known Ruth Kendall for about ten years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived, and that it was outstanding. When asked to state on what he based his opinion,, he replied: \u201cAs a pastor and counseling with other members of the church and their counseling with me and statements made about her and also in and out of the church I knew her.\u201d\nMajor Darryl C. Judson testified he had known Ruth Kendall for about eight years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived, and that it was outstanding. When requested to state the basis for his answer, he replied: \u201cI base this upon personal observation, talking with friends and conversation with other people and upon my own seeing what she has done on her courage and her integrity.\u201d\nWill R. Godwin testified he had known Ruth Kendal! for ten or twelve years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived, and that it was very good. When asked to state the basis for his testimony, he replied: \u201cI am her Sunday School teacher and I am the director of the choir in which she sings. She is there every Wednesday night and every Sunday and I can find nothing wrong with her whatsoever. She is a very fine girl.\u201d\nEugene Arthur Ledbetter, a soldier in the United States Army, testified he had known Ruth Kendall between ten' and twelve years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived, and that it was excellent. When asked to state the basis for that opinion, he replied: \u201cI base this on my own personal observation and discussions with other church leaders regarding positions of leadership that have been filled with the church and I know her reputation as being; the finest a woman can have.\u201d\nPansy Cain Porter testified she had known Ruth- Kendell approximately twelve years, knew her character and reputation in the community in which she lived, and that it was outstanding. When asked what she based that opinion on, she replied: \u201cI have been knowing her approximately twelve years and personal contact. And working with her in the church and choir.\u201d\nRoy A. Parker testified that he knew Ruth Kendall; that her character and reputation in the community in which she lived was very good and that he based his opinion upon talking with his friends and neighbors in the church and in the community and as a personal observation.\nMitchell Reinburger testified that he knew the character and reputation of the prosecuting witness in the community in which she lived and that it was outstanding; that his opinion was based on his personal knowledge of her and the opinions of his friends.\nCatherine Reinburger testified that she knew the character and reputation of Ruth Kendall in the community in which she lived and that it was excellent; that her opinion was based on the fact that she had known Mrs. Kendall for three and one-half years, had been involved in activities with her and her husband, and from talking with friends and acquaintances.\nAnn Riggin testified that she knew the character and reputation of Ruth Kendall in the community in which she lived and that it was excellent; that her opinion was based on living in the community with her when she was growing up, going to church with her, and having Mrs. Kendall in her home at Christmas time.\nTony Cimaglia testified that he knew the general character and reputation of the prosecuting witness in the community in which she lived and that it was very good; that his opinion was based on being with Mrs. Kendall and her husband on numerous occasions and through friends in the community and from knowing her personally.\nAldan Ernest Pease testified that he knew the character and reputation of Mrs. Kendall in the community in which she lived and that it was outstanding; that his opinion was based on his personal acquaintance with Ruth Kendall and her husband \u201cand through personal acquaintances with neighbors and church members.\u201d\nMrs. Roland Harris, Jr., testified that she knew the general character and reputation of the prosecuting witness in the community in which she lived and that it was good; that her opinion was based on her own personal observation. \u201cThe witness testified that the prosecuting witness and her husband had been in the witness\u2019 home several times during the time they were dating and since then and the witness further testified that in her opinion the prosecuting witness is a fine Christian girl.\u201d\nIt is the general rule in this State that a sustaining or impeaching character witness must first qualify himself by indicating whether he knows the general reputation or character of the person. Johnson v. Massengill, 280 N.C. 376, 186 S.E. 2d 168 (1972) ; State v. Ellis, 243 N.C. 142, 90 S.E. 2d 225 (1955) ; State v. Bowen, 226 N.C. 601, 39 S.E. 2d 740 (1946) ; State v. Colson, 193 N.C. 236, 136 S.E. 730 (1927) ; State v. Steen, 185 N.C. 768, 117 S.E. 793 (1923) ; 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence, \u00a7 114 (Brandis Rev. 1973).\nWhen thus qualified, the character witness may then indicate, of his own accord or by prompting from counsel, what that general reputation is. State v. Smoak, 213 N.C. 79, 195 S.E. 72 (1938) ; State v. Sentelle, 212 N.C. 386, 193 S.E. 405 (1937) ; State v. Nance, 195 N.C. 47, 141 S.E. 468 (1928) ; Edwards v. Price, 162 N.C. 243, 78 S.E. 145 (1913) ; State v. Ussery, 118 N.C. 1177, 24 S.E. 414 (1896).\nChief Justice Stacy in State v. Hicks, 200 N.C. 539, 157 S.E. 851 (1931), states the rule for qualifying a character witness and eliciting character testimony from him in these words:\n\u201cThe rule is, that when an impeaching or sustaining character witness is called, he should first be asked whether he knows the general reputation and character of the witness or party about which he proposes to testify. This is a preliminary qualifying question which should be answered yes or no. If the witness answer it in the negative, he should be stood aside without further examination. If he'reply in the affirmative, thus qualifying himself to speak on the subject of general reputation and character, counsel may then ask him to state what it is. This he may do categorically, i.e. simply saying that is good or bad, without'more, or he may, of his own volition, but without suggestion from counsel offering the witness, amplify or qualify his testimony, by adding that it is good for certain virtues.or bad for certain vices.\u201d \u2022 \u25a0\"\nThis procedure was followed in the examination of witnesses Roger Frazee and Gilda Smith. In the examination of the remaining twelve witnesses, however, the district attorney added the question: \u201cOn what do you base your opinion?\u201d Defendant contends this question spawned expressions of personal opinions and narrations of specific acts relating to Ruth Kendall\u2019s good character in violation of the rule that character may not be shown by the opinion of the character witness or by specific acts of the person whose character is in question. See Johnson v. Massengill, 280 N.C. 376, 186 S.E. 2d 168 (1972).\nAlthough unnecessary and ineptly phrased, the additional question and the answers thereto tended to show the foundation for the character evidence given by the witnesses. A strong or weak foundation for the testimony of a witness aids the jury in determining the weight it will give that testimony. State v. Young, 210 N.C. 452, 187 S.E. 561 (1936) ; Moss v. Knitting Mills, 190 N.C. 644, 130 S.E. 635 (1925) ; 2 Wigmore, Evidence \u00a7 655 (3rd Ed. 1940). Thus the question was properly permitted, and we perceive no prejudice from either the question or the responses. State v. Kiziah, 217 N.C. 399, 8 S.E. 2d 474 (1940).\nIn the cross-examination of Ruth Kendall, defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony tending to show that she consented to the intercourse with defendant and fabricated the alleged rape because she was afraid her husband would learn the truth concerning her rendezvous with defendant. The questions implied that Mrs. Kendall had willingly engaged in an adulterous act and then sought to conceal it by false testimony on direct examination. In that setting, the district attorney was entitled, while making out the State\u2019s case in chief, to offer evidence of her good character and reputation to sustain and strengthen her veracity and virtue. Ingle v. Transfer Co., 271 N.C. 276, 156 S.E. 2d 265 (1967) ; Lorbacher v. Talley, 256 N.C. 258, 123 S.E. 2d 477 (1962) ; State v. Hooks, 228 N.C. 689, 47 S.E. 2d 234 (1948) ; State v. Litteral, 227 N.C. 527, 43 S.E. 2d 84, cert. denied 332 U.S. 764, 92 L.Ed. 349, 68 S.Ct. 69 (1947) ; State v. Bethea, 186 N.C. 22, 118 S.E. 800 (1923) ; 1 Jones on Evidence \u00a7 4:37 (6th Ed. 1972) ; 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 50 (Brandis Rev. 1973) ; 4 Wigmore, Evidence \u00a7 1104 (Chadbourn Rev. 1972) ; 29 Am. Jur. 2d, Evidence \u00a7 342 (1967). Moreover, \u201cthe character of the complainant in rape may, it seems, be shown as bearing on the question of consent.\u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 105 (Brandis Rev. 1973) ; State v. Grundler and Jelly, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E. 2d 1 (1959), cert. denied 362 U.S. 917, 4 L.Ed. 2d 738, 80 S.Ct. 670 (1960) ; State v. Hairston, 121 N.C. 579, 28 S.E. 492 (1897) ; State v. Daniel, 87 N.C. 507 (1882) ; State v. Jefferson, 28 N.C. 305 (1846). In every criminal prosecution a defendant may offer evidence of his good character and have it considered as substantive evidence in his favor. On the same theory, in a prosecution for rape, where the credibility of the prosecutrix is attacked either by evidence or by questions on cross-examination insinuating that she consented to sexual relations with the defendant, the State is entitled to offer evidence of the good character of the prosecutrix. The defense of consent is a charge that the prosecutrix has, under oath, falsely accused a man in a matter involving his life or death. The State, therefore, may put in evidence any circumstance tending to lessen the likelihood that she is guilty of such criminal and iniquitous conduct. See 1 Stanbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7\u00a7 104 and 105 (Brandis Rev. 1973). In situations where the defendant does not question the fact of rape but denies that he is the guilty party, the character of the prosecutrix is not directly involved in the issue.\nWe note that each character witness categorically stated that Ruth Kendall\u2019s character and reputation was \u201coutstanding,\u201d \u201cvery good,\u201d or \u201cexcellent.\u201d Then in response to the additional question the witnesses indicated that their testimony Ayas based on association, observation and discussion with Ruth: Kendall and her associates. Eight of the witnesses (Hopkins,' Judson, Ledbetter, Parker, Mitchell, Reinburger, Cimaglia and Pease) testified they had gained knowledge of Ruth Kendall\u2019s reputation through personal observation, and by talking with church members, friends, neighbors, personal acquaintances, and other members of the community. The testimony of each witness, when taken as a whole, indicates that the witness was in a position to observe Ruth Kendall and to gain knowledge of her general reputation in the community from those knowledgeable of that reputation. Such testimony, as well as the length of time each witness had known Ruth Kendall, was admissible to show the foundation for their estimate of her character. State v. Carden, 209 N.C. 404, 183 S.E. 898, cert. denied 298 U.S. 682, 80 L.Ed. 1402, 56 S.Ct. 960 (1936).\nThe fact that several of the witnesses attended the- same church as Ruth Kendall and based their testimony on what had been heard in the church community did not render the testimony inadmissible. Evidence of Ruth Kendall\u2019s general reputation among the members of the church community was competent. State v. McEachern, 283 N.C. 57, 194 S.E. 2d 787 (1973). And the number of character witnesses who were permitted to testify rested in the sound discretion of the trial court. State v. Wright, 274 N.C. 380, 163 S.E. 2d 897 (1968) ; Wells v. Bissette, 266 N.C. 774, 147 S.E. 2d 210 (1966) ; see Annot., Propriety and Prejudicial Effect of Trial Court\u2019s Limiting Number of Character or Reputation Witnesses, 17 A.L.R. 3d 327 (1968). The number permitted in this case by the trial judge is understandable since Mrs. Kendall\u2019s character was under attack.\nOnly the testimony of Mrs. Roland Harris, Jr., appears to be grounded solely on personal opinion and thus inadmissible. Error in admitting her testimony is harmless since Ruth Kendall\u2019s good reputation was well established by other admissible evidence. State v. Killian, 173 N.C. 792, 92 S.E. 499 (1917) ; accord, United States v. Neff, 343 F. Supp. 978 (E.D. Pa. 1972), aff\u2019d 475 F. 2d 861 (3rd Cir. 1973). We conclude, for the reasons stated, that defendant\u2019s second and third assignments of error are without merit.\nAssignments of error five, six and eleven assert error in the admission of evidence tending to show defendant had been arrested for rape in 1971. One question of law is presented under the three assignments, so we consider them together.\nRuth Kendall testified on direct examination that defendant told her \u201cthat he had had a lady in 1971 and that he had done the same thing to her that he had done to me and he had beat the rap, and that he had spent time in jail for it.\u201d When the police came to her home, she told them what defendant had said \u201cconcerning 1971.\u201d She said she did not know defendant\u2019s name at that time and the name Stegmann was not mentioned by anyone. Defendant made no objection and took no exception to the introduction of her testimony.\nDefendant Stegmann took the stand and testified he did not tell Ruth Kendall that he had previously been charged with rape. On cross-examination he stated that Mrs. Kendall had lied about the statement.\nOn the direct examination of Deputy Sheriffs Conerly and Martin, the district attorney inquired whether the officers had reviewed their files as a result of Ruth Kendall\u2019s description of the suspect and the statement concerning his arrest for rape in 1971. The witnesses in substance testified that such a review was made and, as a result, the defendant\u2019s name was turned over to Detective Merritt of the Fayetteville City Police Department. Detective Merritt testified that he received defendant\u2019s name from the sheriff\u2019s department and that defendant was arrested. Objections and exceptions to the questioning and testimony of these witnesses constitutes defendant\u2019s fifth assignment of error.\nIn a series of questions propounded on cross-examination, the district attorney asked defendant, inter alia, whether he knew Diane Hoffman, whether he raped her in September 1971 and used a knife in the process, whether he had sexual intercourse with her, and whether he knew Officer House who was sitting in the courtroom. Defendant responded that he had known Diane Hoffman for approximately five or six hours and admitted having sexual intercourse with her. However, he denied using his knife and raping her. He stated that he knew Officer House. Objections and exceptions to these questions and testimony constitute defendant\u2019s sixth assignment of error.\nDuring argument to the jury the district attorney recapitulated the above' testimony, stating at one point that it showed the steps leading to the identification and apprehension of defendant. At another point in his argument he invited the jury to \u201cdraw the reasonable inferences\u201d from it. Objections and exceptions to such argument constitutes defendant\u2019s eleventh assignment of error.\nDefendant argues that one of the major thrusts of the State\u2019s case was directed towards proving and arguing that defendant had a prior arrest for rape. He contends such testimony and argument should have been excluded under authority of State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971).\nIn Williams the defendant was tried for robbery. On cross-examination he was asked whether he was under indictment for other unrelated robberies. Overruling a line of cases to the contrary, this Court held that \u201cfor purposes of impeachment, a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may not be cross-examined as to whether he has been indicted or is under indictment for a criminal offense other than that for Which he is then on trial.\u201d The Court also held, a fortiori, that \u201cfor purposes of impeachment, a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, may not be cross-examined as to whether he has been accused, either informally or by affidavit on which a warrant is issued, of a criminal offense unrelated to the case on trial, nor cross-examined as to whether he has been arrested for such unrelated criminal offense.\u201d In conclusion, Chief Justice Bobbitt, writing for the Court, defined the limits of that decision:\n\u201cWe are not at present concerned with the general rule that, in a prosecution for a particular crime, the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has been convicted of another distinct, independent, or separate offense, nor with any of the well recognized exceptions to that rule. See State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954), and cases cited. Evidence which is admissible under any of the well recognized exceptions is admissible as substantive evidence. At present, we are. concerned only with questions which are permissible on cross-examination solely for purposes of impeachment.\n\u201cIt is permissible, for purposes of. impeachment, to cross-examine a witness, including the defendant in a criminal case, by asking disparaging questions concerning collateral matters relating to his criminal and degrading conduct. State v. Patterson, 24 N.C. 346 (1824) ; State v. Davidson, 67 N.C. 119 (1872) ; State v. Ross, 275 N.C. 550, 553, 169 S.E. 2d 875, 878 (1969). Such questions related to matters within the knowledge of the witness, not to accusations of any kind made by others. We do not undertake here to mark the limits of such cross-examination except to say generally (1) the scope thereof is subject to the discretion of the trial judge, and (2) the questions must be asked in good faith.\u201d\nThe Williams decision does not affect the general rule that in a prosecution for a particular crime the State cannot offer evidence tending to show the accused committed another distinct, independent or separate offense. See State v. Jones, 278 N.C. 88, 178 S.E. 2d 820 (1971) ; State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954). Nor does Williams displace the many recognized exceptions to that general rule. See State v. McClain, supra; State v. Harris, 223 N.C. 697, 28 S.E. 2d 232 (1943) ; State v. Hight, 150 N.C. 817, 63 S.E. 1043 (1909).\nWhen the general rule excluding evidence of other offenses is stated in terms of relevancy of evidence, the rule becomes absolute. Professor Stansbury correctly states the rule as follows:\n\u201cThis is commonly supposed to be a somewhat difficult and complex field, marked out by a general rule of exclusion and a series of exceptions. It is submitted, however, that the rule is in fact a simple one which, when accurately stated, is subject to no exceptions: Evidence of other offenses is inadmissible on the issue of guilt if its only relevancy is to show the character of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the one charged; but if it tends to prove any other relevant fact it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to have been guilty of an independent crime.\u201d 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence \u00a7 91 (Brandis Rev. 1973) ; accord, State v. Shutt, 279 N.C. 689, 185 S.E. 2d 206 (1971), cert. denied 406 U.S. 928, 32 L.Ed. 2d 130, 92 S.Ct. 1805 (1972) ; State v. McClain, supra at 176-77, 81 S.E. 2d at 368 (\u201cThe acid test is its logical relevancy to the particular excepted purpose or purposes for which it is sought to be introduced,\u201d quoting State v. Gregory, 191 S.C. 212, 4 S.E. 2d 1).\nUnder this rule evidence tending to show that defendant had been arrested for rape in 1971 is admissible if it is relevant to some legitimate issue in the trial other than defendant\u2019s character or disposition for crime. We find it admissible to show identification and to corroborate the testimony of Ruth Kendall.\nRuth Kendall testified defendant told her he had committed a similar act in 1971 for which he spent time in jail, but that he ultimately \u201cbeat the rap.\u201d The subsequent questioning and testimony of the officers and defendant, which tended to show that he had in fact been arrested for a similar incident, was obviously relevant to show that defendant was the person who had raped Ruth Kendall and made the statement concerning a similar offense in 1971. State v. Perry, 275 N.C. 565, 169 S.E. 2d 839 (1969) ; see also State v. Shutt, supra; State v. Williams, 276 N.C. 703, 174 S.E. 2d 503 (1970), rev\u2019d on other grounds 403 U.S. 948, 29 L.Ed. 2d 860, 91 S.Ct. 2290 (1971), and cases cited therein.\nEven so, defendant contends that the issue of identification was never really in issue since the defense was based on consent rather than misidentification. Nevertheless, his plea of not guilty put in issue every material element of the State\u2019s charge against him. State v. McWilliams, 277 N.C. 680, 178 S.E. 2d 476 (1971) ; State v. Courtney, 248 N.C. 447, 103 S.E. 2d 861 (1958). Regardless of the development at the previous trial or defendant\u2019s testimony in the trial now under consideration, it was incumbent on the prosecution to prove that defendant committed the alleged crime. 65 Am. Jur. 2d, Rape \u00a7 53 (1972). The district attorney was not required to speculate as to possible defenses before defendant put on evidence.\nMoreover, the evidence tended to confirm the statement that defendant had committed a similar offense in 1971 which would indicate that Ruth Kendall did not fabricate her testimony concerning the statement. The evidence strengthened what Ruth Kendall had said, and therefore was admissible for corroboration purposes. See State v. Case, 253 N.C. 130, 116 S.E. 2d 429 (1960), cert. denied 365 U.S. 830, 5 L.Ed. 2d 707, 81 S.Ct. 717 (1961) ; State v. Lippard, 223 N.C. 167, 25 S.E. 2d 594, cert. denied 320 U.S. 749, 88 L.Ed. 445, 64 S.Ct. 52 (1943) ; State v. Morton, 107 N.C. 890, 12 S.E. 112 (1890).\nEven assuming arguendo that the evidence served no relevant purpose and was inadmissible, there was no prejudicial error. On both direct and cross-examination Ruth Kendall testified that defendant told her he had committed a similar offense and \u201cbeat the rap.\u201d Since defendant made no objection to her testimony, his subsequent objections to evidence of the same or like import were of no avail. State v. Van Landingham, 283 N.C. 589, 197 S.E. 2d 539 (1973) ; State v. Davis, 282 N.C. 107, 191 S.E. 2d 664 (1972) ; State v. Jarrett, 271 N.C. 576, 157 S.E. 2d 4 (1967) ; State v. Wright, 270 N.C. 158, 153 S.E. 2d 883 (1967). Assignments of error five, six and eleven are overruled.\nAssignments of error eight and ten are directed to the district attorney\u2019s argument to the jury.\nAssignment eight alleges error in the following portion of the argument, which reads:\n\u201cIn criminal law we have certain rules, laws, statutes and all of these are designed to protect the rights of defendant. They have been brought about by custom from England, statutes that have been designed through history and building up to the present day, laws that we work with. Now under those rules of evidence, there is certain evidence that can\u2019t be presented to you, for the protection of the defendant.\nNow, that is just the law, yet, even in view of those rules and those laws, argument can be made to you, why wasn\u2019t this or that brought in. Now, that seems inconsistent to you but that is the law. I maybe could not present evidence, but the defense attorney can stand up and say why didn\u2019t we, when he knows that it was for the protection of his defendant, that evidence didn\u2019t come in, from some law\u2014\nAttorney Glusman: Objection. (The Judge is not in the Courtroom).\nThe law is clear and I can ask a defendant on cross examination about prior misconduct, specific instances, that is the law of the case, law in North Carolina. The law is equally clear that if the defendant denies that, I can\u2019t put on independent evidence of it.\nAttorney Glusman: Objection.\u201d\nDefendant\u2019s objections to this portion of the argument and a motion for mistrial grounded thereon were denied.\nNumerous cases hold that the argument of counsel must be left largely to the control and discretion of the presiding judge and that counsel must be allowed wide latitude in the argument of hotly contested cases. E.g. State v. Monk, 286 N.C. 509, 212 S.E. 2d 125 (1975) ; State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 86 S.E. 2d 424 (1955) ; State v. Bowen, 230 N.C. 710, 55 S.E. 2d 466 (1949) ; State v. Little, 228 N.C. 417, 45 S.E. 2d 542 (1947).\nIt is the duty of the prosecuting attorney in all phases of the trial to present the State\u2019s case with earnestness and vigor and to use every legitimate means to bring about a just conviction. See State v. Monk, supra; State v. Westbrook, 279 N.C. 18, 181 S.E. 2d 572 (1971), vacated on other grounds, 408 U.S. 939, 33 L.Ed. 2d 761, 92 S.Ct. 2873 (1972) ; 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law \u00a7 1081 (1961).\nSuch is the case here. Both counsel for defendant and the district attorney presented forceful arguments to the jury. Defense counsel repeatedly argued that there was no evidence that defendant was arrested for rape in 1971, just accusations. Defense counsel\u2019s remarks invited the district attorney\u2019s response indicating why he had not introduced such evidence. Although we do not concede, as the district attorney apparently thought, that the stated rule precluded the actual introduction of such evidence for relevant purposes other than impeachment, we perceive no error in the trial court\u2019s ruling upon the district attorney\u2019s responsive argument. State v. Seipel, 252 N.C. 335, 113 S.E. 2d 432 (1960) ; State v. Knotts, 168 N.C. 173, 83 S.E. 972 (1914) ; 75 Am. Jur. 2d, Trial \u00a7 233 (1974). Defendant\u2019s eighth assignment is overruled.\nDefendant\u2019s tenth assignment of error is also directed to portions of the district attorney\u2019s argument. Exceptions 58, 61-64 and 67 are grouped under this assignment and relate to the following excerpts from the argument:\n\u201cVery frankly, I want you to be bothered. I think we all are bothered by this. I think it is shocking. I think it is the most horrible thing that can happen to anybody in this world.\u201d Objection. Overruled. Exception No. 58.\n* * * *\n\u201cShe has been accused of taking up with this stranger after a fifteen minute conversation and running off to the woods and having intercourse on a path, on a wet day, as a lark. I am not going to call the name that you would refer to, as to somebody that would do that, but you know what it is and that is what he is saying she did. She has been accused of being a liar. Her character has been assaulted in about the most lowly manner that can be done to anybody.\u201d Objection. Overruled. Exception No. 61.\n\u201cAnd I ask you \u2014 most of you men can probably not understand it, because you can\u2019t be placed in the woman\u2019s shoes, completely \u2014 but let me ask you, how would you feel if you were called the things in this Court \u2014 \u201d Objection. Exception No. 62.\n\u201c \u2014 that she was called?\u201d Objection. Overruled. Exception No. 63.\n\u201cAnd they said on top of all this, and this really tops it all, that she can just turn on and off the tears when she wants to. By gosh, after what she has gone through and what she was being called. And there is no protection from what is printed or what is published in a trial of a case. Everybody talks about it. But look what happened. She is ' scarred \u2014 not physically, there is no scarring on the outside, but she is scarred mentally. She has got to live with it. She has got to live with this horrible experience the rest of her life.\u201d Objection. Overruled. Exception No. 64.\n:|: $ * *\n\u201cThe defendant Stegmann feels, as has been shown you, that he can force his way on any woman. He is going to do what he pleases, regardless of whose rights he violates. He is above the law and that is the way he sits here right now, T am above the law. I am going to thumb my nose at you.\u2019 \u201d Objection.\n\u201cCourt: Proceed to some other form of argument, Mr. District Attorney.\u201d Exception No. 67.\nIn presenting the State\u2019s case, the prosecutor must \u201cshow the whole transaction as it was.\u201d He has much latitude in the language and manner of presenting his side of the case \u201cconsistent with the facts in evidence.\u201d State v. Westbrook, supra; 23A C.J.S., Criminal Law \u00a7\u00a7 1081 and 1090 (1961).\nThe prosecutor is entitled to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. State v. Conner, 244 N.C. 109, 92 S.E. 2d 668 (1956) ; State v. Willard, 241 N.C. 259, 84 S.E. 2d 899 (1954) ; State v. Campo, 233 N.C. 79, 62 S.E. 2d 500 (1950). On the other hand, he may not place before the jury incompetent, irrelevant and prejudicial matters, and may not \u201ctravel outside the record\u201d by injecting into his argument facts of his own knowledge or other facts not included in the evidence. State v. Monk, supra; State v. Crisp, 244 N.C. 407, 94 S.E. 2d 402, 67 A.L.R. 2d 236 (1956) ; State v. Phillips, 240 N.C. 516, 82 S.E. 2d 762 (1954) ; State v. Dockery, 238 N.C. 222, 77 S.E. 2d 664 (1953) ; State v. Buchanan, 216 N.C. 709, 6 S.E. 2d 521 (1940).\nThe fact that the sympathy or prejudice of the jury may be aroused by the argument of counsel does not render the argument improper when it is legitimate and based on competent evidence. Only comments calculated to inflame unduly the passions and prejudices of jurors are improper.\n\u201cOrdinarily, legitimate arguments based on competent evidence in the case are not rendered improper by the fact that they incidentally stir the sympathies and prejudices of the jury, and, a fortiori, do not constitute error where they are relatively of little importance, and have no tendency to create sympathy or prejudice greater than the facts in evidence create, or where they are within the permissible bounds of fair comment and are not in fact inflammatory to the extent of constituting misconduct by the prosecuting attorney. On the other hand, comments calculated unduly to create, arouse or inflame their sympathies, prejudices, or passions to the detriment of the accused are improper.\nOn the other hand, it has been held not to be an improper appeal to the sympathies and prejudices of the jurors to denounce crime in strong terms, or to characterize the crime charged or point out its gravity, heinousness, and consequences; but comments to the effect that the crime was of such a nature as might well have induced relatives of the injured person or citizens generally to take the law into their own hands are usually held improper.\u201d 23A C. J.S., Criminal Law \u00a7 1105 (1961).\nApplying these principles to this case, the district attorney\u2019s argument is within permissible bounds of fair debate, except the portion to which Exception No. 67 is addressed. That portion was improper and the trial judge stopped it before any prejudice, beyond that created by the facts themselves, was done. See State v. Barefoot, 241 N.C. 650, 86 S.E. 2d 424 (1955). Assignment number ten is overruled.\nAssignments one, seven and nine are not discussed in defendant\u2019s brief and are therefore deemed abandoned. Rule 28, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 254 N.C. 783, 810 (1961).\nThe witness Alden Ernest Pease testified that Ruth Kendall\u2019s character and reputation in the community in which she lived was outstanding. On cross-examination he testified that he was a special investigator with an intelligence unit involving seven states but, by reason of the confidential nature of his work, could not reveal details concerning the type of work involved or the identity of his employer. Defendant\u2019s fourth assignment of error is addressed to the refusal of the court to require the witness to reveal that information: It suffices to say that the nature of Mr. Pease\u2019s work had nothing to do with the basis of his testimony concerning Mrs. Kendall\u2019s character and reputation in her community. This assignment is overruled without further discussion.\nDefendant\u2019s twelfth assignment of error argues the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. This point has already been the subject of final judicial determination in this State until and unless further review is required by legislative enactment or by the Supreme Court of the United States. State v. Waddell, 282 N.C. 431, 194 S.E. 2d 19 (1973) State v. Jarrette, 284 N.C. 625, 202 S.E. 2d 721 (1974) ; State v. Crowder, 285 N.C. 42, 203 S.E. 2d 38 (1974) ; State v. Fowler, 285 N.C. 90, 203 S.E. 2d 803 (1974).\nExamination of the entire record discloses that defendant received a fair trial free from prejudicial error. The verdict and judgments must therefore be upheld.\nNo error.\nChief Justice Sharp dissents as to the death sentence and votes to remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for the reasons stated in her dissenting opinion in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 434, 212 S.E. 2d 113, 123 (1975).\nJustice Copeland dissents as to death sentence and votes to remand for imposition of a sentence of life imprisonment for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422 at 437, 212 S.E. 2d 113 at 122 (1975).", "type": "majority", "author": "HUSKINS, Justice." }, { "text": "Justice Exum\ndissenting:\nIn my view there was prejudicial error in the trial in the admission of much of the character evidence and in the prosecutor\u2019s closing argument.\nThe testimony of several of the character witnesses in response to the district attorney\u2019s questions regarding the \u201cbasis\u201d for earlier and properly expressed opinions constituted an improper effort by the State to prove, over objection of the defendant, the character of the prosecuting witness by specific acts and personal opinion. The witness Judson was allowed to testify that his opinion of the prosecuting witness\u2019 character was based upon \u201cpersonal observation\u201d and \u201cupon my own seeing what she has done on her courage and her integrity.\u201d The witness Godwin testified that the prosecuting witness was in his Sunday School Class and the choir which he directed and that she regularly attended meetings every Wednesday night and every Sunday and that he could \u201cfind nothing wrong with her whatsoever.\u201d The witness Ledbetter said his opinion was based on his \u201cown personal observation.\u201d The witness Reinburger said that her opinion was based on her own \u201cpersonal observation of the prosecuting witness\u2019 reaction to things.\u201d The witness Riggin testified that she had had the prosecuting witness in her home on Christmas and her opinion of her character was based on \u201cjust personal observation.\u201d The witness Harris testified that \u201cin her opinion the prosecuting witness is a fine Christian girl.\u201d\nWhile the State was entitled to prove the character of the prosecuting witness both on the issue of her credibility and on the issue of whether she consented to the sexual intercourse, the only method of proof previously sanctioned by this Court and most other jurisdictions is by showing the general reputation of the witness in the community where she lived. Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. 469, 93 L.Ed. 168, 69 S.Ct. 213 (1948) ; State v. McEachern, 283 N.C. 57, 194 S.E. 2d 787 (1973) ; State v. Steen, 185 N.C. 768, 117 S.E. 793 (1923). See 1 Stanbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 110 at 336-337, and cases cited, where it is stated:\n\u201cThere are three' methods by which a person\u2019s character might conceivably be proved: (1) by the opinion of those who know him, (2) by reputation, and (3) by specific acts. Where a character is directly in issue, it seems that all three of these processes are available. But when character is offered as evidence of a person\u2019s conduct on a particular occasion, the first method is not allowed at all, and the third is available only on cross-examination of the person whose character is in question. Therefore the standard method, and usually the only permissible method, of proving character is by reputation.\u201d\nIt is clear that the character of the prosecuting witness was not directly but only collaterally in issue. Character is directly in issue only when it is one of the ultimate facts to be proved or disproved in the case, for example, in actions for defamation where injury to reputation is one of the principal measures of damage or in prosecutions for the seduction of an \u201cinnocent and virtuous woman\u201d under General Statute \u00a7 14-180. 1 Stansbury\u2019s North Carolina Evidence, Brandis Revision, \u00a7 102. Where character evidence \u201cis offered on the question of a witness\u2019 credibility, or as evidence that a party or third person did or did not do a particular thing\u201d it is only collaterally in issue. Id. \u00a7 111, n. 5. A criminal defendant may offer evidence of his good character both on the question of his credibility if he testifies and on the question of his guilt whether or not he testifies, but his proof must be limited to his general reputation in the community. Michelson v. United States, supra,; State v. McKissick, 271 N.C. 500, 507, 157 S.E. 2d 112, 118 (1967) ; State v. Sentelle, 212 N.C. 386, 193 S.E. 405 (1937). The Supreme Court of the United States, reviewing the general law on the subject, stated the rule as follows:\n\u201cThe witness may not testify about defendant\u2019s specific acts or courses of conduct or his possession of a particular disposition or of benign mental and moral traits; nor can he testify that his own acquaintance, observation, and knowledge of defendant leads to his own independent opinion that defendant possesses a good general or specific character, inconsistent with commission of acts charged. The witness is, however, allowed to summarize what he has heard in the community, although much of it may have been said by persons less qualified to judge than himself. The evidence which the law permits is not as to the personality of defendant but only as to the shadow his daily life has cast in his neighborhood.\u201d Michelson v. United States, 335 U.S. at 477, 93 L.Ed. at 174, 69 S.Ct. at 219.\nThis is also the North Carolina rule stated in State v. Steen, 185 N.C. at 770, 117 S.E. at 794 as follows:\n\u201cIn North Carolina the testimony of a character witness is confined to the general reputation of the person whose character is attacked, or supported, in the community in which he lives. State v. Parks, 25 N.C., 296; State v. Perkins, 66 N.C., 126 ; State v. Gee, 92 N.C., 756; State v. Wheeler, 104 N.C., 893 ; State v. Coley, 114 N.C., 879, and numerous other cases since. Reputation is the general opinion, good or bad, held of a person by those of a community in which he resides. This is eminently a matter of hearsay, based upon what the witness has heard or learned, not as to any particular acts, but as to the general opinion or standing in the community.\u201d\nThis same rule has previously been true with regard to the prosecutrix in a rape case. \u201cThe State may only prove her general character \u2014 it may not offer proof of particular traits of character.\u201d State v. Grundler, 251 N.C. 177, 192, 111 S.E. 2d 1, 12 (1959).\nThe reason for the rule limiting character evidence to general reputation is grounded not in logic but in policy and expediency. Michelson v. United States, supra; State v. Adams, 193 N.C. 581, 137 S.E. 657 (1927). Certainly the opinion of a witness who knows the person whose character is in question and prior specific acts of that person are highly relevant on the question of the person\u2019s character. We have said, however, that the rule prohibiting this kind of evidence \u201cis both sound and salutary, for the reason that it obviates a mass of collateral questions which would interminably prolong trials and inevitably result in drawing the minds of the jurors far afield from the merit of the case.\u201d State v. Adams, 193 N.C. at 582, 137 S.E. at 658.\nThe holding of the majority, I fear, dangerously ignores the policy for limiting character evidence previously recognized by this and other courts. If the good character of the prosecuting witness in a rape case may be shown by the State through the personal opinion of witnesses who know her and by their revelation of her specific acts then the defendant must be allowed to attack her character by the same kind of testimony. The character of a defendant may likewise be proved. The majority opinion takes us back to what Justice Jackson in Michelson v. United States, supra, called \u201cthe frontier phase of our law\u2019s development, [where] calling friends to vouch for defendant\u2019s good character, and its counterpart \u2014 calling the rivals and enemies of a witness to impeach him by testifying that his reputation for veracity was so bad that he was unworthy of belief on his oath\u2014 were favorite and frequent ways of converting an individual litigation into a community contest and a trial into a spectacle.\u201d 335 U.S. at 480, 93 L.Ed. at 176, 69 S.Ct. at 220.\nAt Stegmann\u2019s first trial character evidence was not offered. The jury was unable to agree on a verdict. The improper admission of this evidence was clearly prejudicial to the defendant.\nThe district attorney\u2019s argument to the jury, set out verbatim in the majority opinion, to the effect that because of the rules of evidence the State was unable to present certain evidence to the jury and that these rules were for the protection of the defendant was improper. It permitted the jury to speculate on what might have been offered; it allowed the State to circumvent the rules of evidence and do indirectly what it could not do directly. The majority justifies the permissibility of the argument on the ground that it was invited by defense counsel and seems to say that it related solely to the question of whether the defendant had previously been arrested for rape. Defense counsel did, indeed, argue that there was no evidence that defendant had been arrested for rape \u2014 \u201cjust accusation.\u201d There was, however, evidence that he had been so arrested from the testimony of the prosecuting witness herself regarding statements made to her by the defendant. The majority recognizes that testimony of officers for the State and of the defendant \u201ctended to show that he had in fact been arrested for a similar incident.\u201d Defense ' counsel, moreover, argued justifiably the failure of the State to offer into evidence the black underpants of the prosecuting witness. Whatever the district attorney\u2019s intent, the jury may well have understood from his argument that the State, somehow, was precluded by law.from offering this evidence.\nThis kind of argument by the prosecution has been consistently condemned and held to be reversible error in cases from this and other jurisdictions. State v. Roach, 248 N.C. 63, 102 S.E. 2d 413 (1958) (\u201cI tell you I could get a number of people, at least one hundred, to come in here and testify to his bad character\u201d) ; Ginsberg v. United States, 257 F. 2d 950 (5th Cir. 1958) (\u201cI could probably have fifty people in here who would show that [defendant] isn\u2019t a good character\u201d) ; Snipes v. United States, 230 F. 2d 165 (6th Cir. 1956) (\u201cWe could have made thirty or forty counts in this thing, if you had wanted to be here a couple of weeks trying this lawsuit\u201d) ; People v. Talle, 111 Cal. App. 2d 650, 676-677, 245 P. 2d 633, 649 (1952) (\u201c[Argument which] broadly implies the prosecution is possessed of much- evidence tending to show guilt that has not been introduced, is erroneous and prejudicial\u201d). It has been so held even where the argument was prompted by statements made by defense counsel and curative instructions were given by the trial court. State v. Eagle, 233 N.C. 218, 63 S.E. 2d 170 (1951) ; Kitchell v. United States, 354 F. 2d 715 (1st Cir. 1965). But see Commonwealth v. French, 357 Mass. 356, 259 N.E. 2d 195 (1970) (\u201c[Y]ou have to use your imagination. There are many things in a court of law that can\u2019t be introduced.\u201d Held, improper but harmless because of adequate curative instructions.)\nIn State v. Eagle, supra, a drunk driving prosecution, defendant had argued the failure of the State to introduce into evidence a bottle of whiskey referred to in the testimony of State\u2019s witnesses. In his argument to the jury the district attorney explained why the whiskey bottle had not been produced, stated that he had sent for the bottle and had it in a paper sack and was willing for it to be shown to the jury. Defendant objected and moved for an instruction that the jury not consider the argument. The motion was denied but in his instructions to the jury the trial judge told them to disregard that portion of the State\u2019s argument. We, nevertheless, because of this argument awarded defendant a new trial.\nIn Kitchell v. United States, supra, the government argued:\n\u201c [T]here was a comment made by defense counsel, there is no evidence here that Mr. Kitchell knew of any of the other defendants. I submit to you it is an unfair comment. There are certain rules of evidence, his Honor will instruct you about, what the Government can introduce without prejudice to its case. I submit it is in that light you must consider that comment.\u201d 354 F. 2d at 719.\nUpon objection the trial judge immediately instructed Government counsel to make no further argument of that nature. But counsel returned to say to the jury, \u201cThe issue is not, does he know these other defendants? If that were the issue, we would bring in an entirely different set of witnesses.\u201d Id. These arguments were held to justify a new trial. The court said:\n\u201cRemarks on the availability of unused \u2018evidence\u2019 are clearly impermissible. Ginsberg v. United States, 5 Cir., 1958, 257 F. 2d 950; see United States v. Lefkowitz, 2 Cir., 1960, 284 F. 2d 310, 314; cf. Greenberg v. United States, 1 Cir., 1960, 280 F. 2d 472, 475. Conceivably a single error in this regard might have been cured by the court\u2019s sustaining the objection. The Government cannot go on, however, making such remarks and having the court strike them out, and then claim they had no effect.\u201d Id.\nIn State v. Monk, 286 N.C. 509, 212 S.E. 2d 125 (1975), we held it to be prejudicial error for the State to argue that a person\u2019s criminal record cannot be offered in evidence unless the person testifies on the ground, however, that the remark amounted to an impermissible comment upon the failure of the defendant to testify in his behalf.\nStegmann, through counsel, promptly objected to the prosecutor\u2019s argument here complained of and moved for a mistrial. His objection was overruled and motion denied. No curative instructions were attempted. This constituted error, in my opinion, entitling defendant to a new trial.\nThe evidence in this case is sharply conflicting. The question of guilt hangs largely on the credibility which the jury accords to the prosecuting witness and to the defendant. I am unable to say that the improper character evidence and the improper portions of the State\u2019s closing argument constituted error which was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.\nI also dissent from the imposition of the death sentence for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in State v. Williams, 286 N.C. 422, 212 S.E. 2d 113 (1975).", "type": "dissent", "author": "Justice Exum" } ], "attorneys": [ "Kenneth Glusman, attorney for defendant appellant.", "James H. Carson, Jr., Attorney General, and James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State of North Carolina." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOHN RICHARD STEGMANN\nNo. 38\n(Filed 14 April 1975)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 89 \u2014 qualification of character witness \u2014 testimony as to general reputation permissible\nIt is the general rule in this State that a sustaining or impeaching character witness must first qualify himself by indicating whether he knows the general reputation or character of the person, and when thus qualified, the character witness may then indicate, of his own accord or by prompting from counsel, what that general reputation is.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 89; Rape \u00a7 4\u2014 character witness \u2014 basis of opinions questioned\nThe district attorney\u2019s question put to witnesses who had testified as to the prosecuting witness\u2019s general reputation and character, \u201cOn what do you base your opinion?\u201d though unnecessary and ineptly phrased, together with the answers thereto tended to show the foundation for the character evidence given by the witnesses, aided the jury in determining the weight to be given the testimony, and was not prejudicial to defendant.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 89; Rape \u00a7 4 \u2014 prosecuting witness in rape case \u2014 veracity questioned \u2014 character evidence proper\nWhere defense counsel in a rape case attempted to elicit testimony from the prosecuting witness tending to show that she consented to the intercourse and fabricated the alleged rape because she was afraid her husband would learn the truth concerning her rendezvous with defendant, the district attorney was entitled, while making out the State\u2019s case in chief, to offer evidence of her good character and reputation to sustain and strengthen her veracity and virtue.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 89; Rape \u00a7 4\u2014 prosecuting witness' in rape case \u2014 character witnesses \u2014 evidence admissible\nTestimony of witnesses in a rape case which indicated that the witnesses were in positions to observe the prosecuting witness and to gain knowledge of her general reputation in the community from those knowledgeable of that reputation was admissible, together with the length of time each witness had known the prosecuting witness, to show the foundation for their estimate of her character; the fact that several of the witnesses attended the same church as the prosecuting witness and based their testimony on what had been heard in the church community did not render the testimony inadmissible.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 34 \u2014 defendant\u2019s guilt of prior rape \u2014 admissibility for identification and corroboration\nIn a rape prosecution the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecuting witness to testify that defendant told her he had previously been charged with rape but had \u201cbeaten the rap,\u201d in allowing officers to testify that they had reviewed their files as a result of the prosecuting witness\u2019s statements to them concerning the earlier rape, in allowing defendant to be cross-examined concerning the rape, and in allowing the district attorney to argue the matter before the jury, since such evidence was admissible to identify defendant as the perpetrator of the offense in question and to corroborate the testimony of the prosecuting witness.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 102 \u2014 district attorney\u2019s jury argument \u2014 reason for failure to introduce evidence\nIn a prosecution for rape where defense counsel repeatedly argued to the jury that there was no evidence that defendant was arrested for rape on an earlier occasion, just accusations, the trial court did not err in allowing the district attorney\u2019s response indicating why he had not introduced such evidence.\n7. Criminal Law \u00a7 102\u2014 argument of prosecutor \u2014 latitude\nThe prosecutor is entitled to argue to the jury the law and the facts in evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, but he may not place before the jury incompetent, irrelevant and prejudicial matters, and may not travel outside the record by injecting into his argument facts of his own knowledge or other facts not included in the evidence; moreover, the fact that the sympathy or prejudice of the jury may be aroused by the argument of counsel does not render the argument improper when it is legitimate and based on competent evidence.\n8. Criminal Law \u00a7 89; Rape \u00a7 4 \u2014 character witness \u2014 information about employment properly excluded\nIn a rape case where a witness testified as to the character and reputation of the prosecuting witness and further testified on cross-examination that he was a special investigator with an intelligence unit, the trial court did not err in refusing to require the witness to divulge details concerning the type of work involved or the identity of his employer.\n9. Constitutional Law \u00a7 36; Rape \u00a7 7 \u2014 death sentence \u2014 constitutionality\nDeath sentence imposed in this rape case was constitutional.\nChief Justice Sharp and Justice Copeland dissenting as to death sentence.\nJustice Exum dissenting.\nAppeal by defendant from judgments of Ccmaday, J., 13 May 1974 Criminal Session, Cumberland Superior Court.\n\u25a0 Defendant was tried upon bills of indictment proper in form charging him with (1) kidnapping and (2) raping Ruth O\u2019Leta Kendall on 4 September 1973 in Cumberland County.\nRuth O\u2019Leta Kendall, a twenty-six-year-old married woman, testified that on 4 September 1973 ,she worked her normal hours of 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. at the Aetna Finance Company office located in the K-Mart Shopping Center on Bragg Boulevard in Fayetteville. Upon leaving work about 5:15 p.m., she made a few purchases in the grocery store, returned to her car, unlocked and opened the door on the driver\u2019s side, and sat down on the seat with her right leg in the car and her left foot and leg outside. The right door to the car was locked and could only be unlocked from the outside because the plastic button on the inside was broken off. While in that position and in the act of placing her groceries on the seat, a man shoved a knife in her ribs and told her to move over. \u201cHe told me to keep quiet and 'move over or he would use the knife. That if' I did keep quiet he'wouldn\u2019t hurt me.\u201d\nMrs. Kendall further testified that she moved over and the man got under the wheel. He required her to keep her hands on her lap while he kept his right arm around her with the knife to her side. It was a straight shift car which he steered with his left hand while she, at his command, changed gears as necessary. The man took her out Bragg Boulevard and into a remote section of Clark\u2019s Park where he stopped the car. He then forced Mrs. Kendall to accompany him on foot into the woods. There, after forcing her to disrobe, he raped her.\nAfter putting on their clothes, Mrs. Kendall inquired if she would be taken back to the K-Mart and the man said, \u201cI .can\u2019t let you live because you can recognize me,\u201d adding that rape was \u00e1 capital offense and that he couldn\u2019t afford to go through that. He told Mrs. Kendall he had been tried for rape in 1971 and .\u201cbeat the rap\u201d and couldn\u2019t go through that again. He told her he had spent time in jail and in a mental hospital; that he had children he had to support; that she could identify him bv his t\u00e1tt\u00f3os. Mrs. Kendall observed that the man\u2019s' front teeth wer\u00e9 missing and that a tattoo on his left forearm said \u201cGod Bless My Family\u201d and had four names, including the name Sharon.' On his right upper arm was an Airborne-type tattoo. He was wearing a T-shirt, fatigue pants, and combat boots. Th\u00e9 m\u00e1\u00f1 pushed Mrs. Kendall through the underbrush until they came to the Cape Fear River. He asked her if she could swim and told her to choose between the knife and the river. She started for the river and he pulled her back and eventually took her back to the car.\nOn the way back to K-Mart he wanted to know her name and she told him. He said he wanted her telephone number, and Mrs. Kendall wrote it on a piece of paper and gave it to him. He told- her that he wanted to have an affair with her \u2014 \u201che wanted to call me up and meet me later. I told him that I would do anything he wanted; he still had the knife and I was still petrified.\u201d\nUpon arrival at the K-Mart parking lot the man talked to Mrs. Kendall for an additional ten or fifteen minutes, then got out of the car and told her to go straight home and not look back. -Mrs. Kendall drove away and noticed a white car following her until she turned into the street where she lived.\nMrs. Kendall immediately told her husband what had occurred. Her clothes were dirty and wet and had mud, debris and pine straw on them. The family doctor was called and the police were notified.\nWhen the police arrived at her home she told them the whole story and gave a description of the man including information about the tattoos, the two missing front teeth, and the color of his hair. She also told the officers that her assailant said \u201che had beat a case like this in \u201971 where he had assaulted another lady and that he had spent time in jail and that he had spent time in a mental hospital.\u201d\nThe officers consulted their files and ascertained that the defendant John Richard Stegmann fit, in minute detail, the description given by Mrs. Kendall. The police records further showed that defendant had been charged with rape in 1971 and acquitted.\nDefendant was arrested and on the following day Mrs. Kendall identified him in a lineup.\nDefendant offered evidence and testified as a witness in his own behalf. He said he was twenty-four years old, married, and had three children named Johnny, Donny and Sharon. He testified he first met Mrs. Kendall in the K-Mart Snack Bar approximately two weeks before he was arrested. The place was crowded and he asked Mrs. Kendall if he might sit at her table where she was eating lunch and she consented. He. introduced himself and she told him her name. He told her he was in the Army, married and had children. He asked her for her telephone number and she gave it to him there in the K-Mart Snack Bar. The number was 867-1700 and he put it in his wallet. On 3 September 1973 he called Mrs. Kendall and in a one-minute conversation they agreed to meet the following day when she got off work. Accordingly, he met her on 4 September 1973 as she came out of the grocery store at the K-Mart Shopping Center. \u201cI walked over to her and took the bags she was carrying and carried them to her car. She then got into her car and I got in, too, and I drove away.\u201d\nThe defendant further testified that they drove to Clark\u2019s Park, went down the path that leads to the river to an area in the woods where they undressed and had sexual relations. It was drizzling at the time. While undressing \u201ceverything1 fell out of one of the pockets in my pants,\u201d including the knife offered in evidence, and Mrs. Kendall helped pick the items up. Defendant said he and Mrs. Kendall then dressed and drove back to the K-Mart Shopping Center where they sat and talked for fifteen or twenty minutes. \u201cI then got out of the car and left. She drove off.\u201d\nDefendant emphatically denied that his small pocket knife was ever open, or that he ever threatened Mrs. Kendall, or that he ever told her he had been previously charged with rape in 1971 and beat the rap. He admitted that his front teeth are missing and that he has tattoos on both arms, one an Airborne-type tattoo and the other with \u201cGod Bless My Family\u201d and four names on it \u2014 Sandra, Sharon, Johnny and Donny.\nDr.-Albert Stewart, Jr., testified that he saw Mrs. Kendall on 4 September 1973 at which time she told him she had been raped. She appeared to be frightened but there was no evidence of any bodily injury. Examination disclosed twigs, bits of debris, leaves and dirt adhering to her back and in the vaginal area. There were no scratches, cuts or bruises on her body and examination of her privates revealed no cuts or bruises or lacerations of any kind.\nThe- arguments were transcribed and constitute part of the record on appeal. Pertinent portions of the district attorney\u2019s argument which are assigned as error will be narrated in the opinion.\nDefendant was convicted of both charges and appeals from a life sentence for the kidnapping and a death sentence for the rape.\nKenneth Glusman, attorney for defendant appellant.\nJames H. Carson, Jr., Attorney General, and James E. Magner, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, for the State of North Carolina." }, "file_name": "0638-01", "first_page_order": 658, "last_page_order": 684 }