{ "id": 11275496, "name": "STATE v. E. G. GLENN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Glenn", "decision_date": "1886-10", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "677", "last_page": "679", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "95 N.C. 677" } ], "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": [], "analysis": { "cardinality": 282, "char_count": 4763, "ocr_confidence": 0.399, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4896945994691217e-07, "percentile": 0.6627818841947928 }, "sha256": "c752b58937902a1519cc1ccc640def7489a78471cfffda0b294902967efa663c", "simhash": "1:008f7ef18458ce2b", "word_count": 800 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:25:31.449463+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. E. G. GLENN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MerriMON, J.\nNeither of the appellant\u2019s exceptions can be sustained. It was obviously his purpose to 'impeach the prosecuting witness by the cross-examination. He sought to show that this witness had instigated and set the prosecution on foot, prompted by motives of ill will towards the defendant, and a wiclced purpose to destroy his business, and thus destroy the weight of witness\u2019 testimony. The State then, certainly had the right to have him explain his conduct brought in question and the motives that prompted his action, so that he might stand in a fair and just light before the jury. A party cannot be allowed to impeach a witness on the cross-examination by calling out evidence culpatory of himself and there stop, leaving the opposing party without opportunity to have the witness explain his conduct, and thus place it in an unobjectionable light if he can. In such case the opposing party has the right to such explanation, oven though it may affect adversely the party who cross-examined. Upon the examination in chief, the evidence may not be competent, but the cross-examination may make it so.'\nThere is no error.\nNo error. Affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "MerriMON, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General, for the State.", "Mr. & C. Smith, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. E. G. GLENN.\nEvidence\u2014 Witness.\nEvidence elicited from a witness on cross-examination calculated and intended to discredit him, may be explained, notwithstanding such explanatory testimony would have been incompetent on the examination in chief.\nThis was an indictment for selling intoxicating liquor on Sunday, tried before Philips, Judge, at July Criminal Term, 1886, of the Superior Court of Waice county.\nDr. J. A. Penny, a State\u2019s witness, on cross-examination, stated that he had not instigated any prosecution against the defendant for illegal sales of liquor; that he was attending this term of the Court in a 'burglary case, in which he and the defendant were witnesses for the State, and having heard that Fowler said that he had bought liquor from the defendant on that Sunday, he (witness) called the attention of the Solicitor to it; that after the prosecution began, he employed counsel to assist in prosecuting the defendant.\nOn being asked by the defendant\u2019s counsel if he had not declared that he intended to \u201c break up \u201d the defendant, he answered as follows: \u201c T tried to break up the selling of liquor at Tipper\u2019s Cross-Roads by the defendant, and did all I honorably could do to do so. I intended to do all I honorably could to break it up. I, and others, opposed the granting of license to the defendant to sell liquor there. I am not on bad terms with the defendant; have not had any trouble with him about land.\u201d Question by defendant: \u201c Don\u2019t you know that petitions were presented to the Board of Commissioners of Wake county, in which he was recommended as a man of good character, and a suitable person to be granted license to sell spirituous liquor ?\u201d The witness answered: \u201c I know that such petitions were presented, but there were counter-petitions ; license was granted him.\u201d\nOn re-direct examination, the witness was asked this question: \u201cYou have stated that you declared your intention to do all you honorably could to break up the selling of whiskey by Glenn at his store. Why did you make that declaration ?\u201d\nQuestion objected to by the defendant. The Court ruled that an impeaching question having been asked the witness and answered as stated, he had a right to explain his reason, and overruled the defendant\u2019s objection, whereupon the defendant excepted.\nThe witness answered, \u201cI made the assertion because I thought the grog-shop was an injury to the community. My children and my neighbors\u2019 boys would be induced to form bad habits there, and it was detrimental to the community. I know a, good many of my neighbors opposed it, and T was willing to assist them in suppressing it, and the reason I did it was because L believed Glenn to be an improper person to sell liquor in any community, and especially in that one.\u201d\nThe defendant objected to this answer as well as to the said question, on the ground, as he contended, that the witness could only state facts, and the reason given by him was irrelevant; and that the answer was objectionable because it put the character of the defendant\u2019s house, as well as of the defendant himself, before the jury.\nObjection to the answer overruled. Exception by defendant to question and answer.\nThe witness was then asked by the solicitor, \u201cWere your reasons based upon what you saw* yourself?\u201d Objected to by defendant, on the grounds given for the preceding objections. Objection overruled. Exception by defendant. ' He answered, \u201c From what I saw myself.\u201d\nThere was a verdict of guilty, and from the judgment thereon the defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General, for the State.\nMr. & C. Smith, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0677-01", "first_page_order": 703, "last_page_order": 705 }