Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. Armstrong

State v. Armstrong

62 S.E.2d 50, 232 N.C. 727, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 612
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedNovember 29, 1950
Docket508
StatusPublished
Cited by26 cases

This text of 62 S.E.2d 50 (State v. Armstrong) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. Armstrong, 62 S.E.2d 50, 232 N.C. 727, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 612 (N.C. 1950).

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The denial of any impeachment of the State’s only eye-witness to the fatal assault necessitates another hearing. It is always open to a defendant to challenge the credibility of the witnesses offered by the prosecution who testify against him. S. v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604.

What could be more effective for the purpose than to impeach the mentality or the intellectual grasp of the witness ? If his interest, bias, indelicate way of life, insobriety and general bad reputation in the community may be shown as bearing upon his unworthiness of belief, why not his imbecility, want of understanding, or moronic compre- *729 tension, which go more directly to the point? S. v. Ham, 224 N.C. 128, 29 S.E. 2d 449; S. v. Witherspoon, 210 N.C. 647, 188 S.E. 111; S. v. Vernon, 208 N.C. 340, 180 S.E. 590; S. v. Rollins, 113 N.C. 722, 18 S.E. 394; Isler v. Dewey, 75 N.C. 466; S. v. Ketchey, 70 N.C. 621; Bailey v. Poole, 35 N.C. 404; Stansbury’s N. C. Evidence, sec. 127, p. 245, note 66. That which may be shown indirectly may also be shown directly. The law favors directness over indirectness; simplicity over complexity; brevity over prolixity; clarity over obscurity; substance over form. There is no virtue in the long phrase when a short one will do just as well. The courtroom is not the home of redundancy or circumlocution. Conciseness is the keynote there.

When a witness goes upon the stand he subjects himself to cross-examination which may take the form of self-depreciation or the depreciation of other witnesses. S. v. Beal, supra, and cases there cited. Here, there was no suggestion of any claim of professional privilege or immunity in respect of Dr. Williston’s proposed testimony; and none could be made in respect of the proposed testimony of the witness Robert Burrus. It follows that error was committed in excluding the proposed evidence.

New trial.

Johnson, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hwang v. Cairns
Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2025
State v. Foust
724 S.E.2d 154 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2012)
State v. Hunt
722 S.E.2d 484 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2012)
State v. Whaley
655 S.E.2d 388 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 2008)
State v. Clark
496 S.E.2d 604 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1998)
State v. Williams
412 S.E.2d 359 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1992)
State v. Fain
774 P.2d 252 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1989)
State v. Gonzales
681 P.2d 1388 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1983)
State v. Newman
302 S.E.2d 174 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1983)
State v. Wilson
456 N.E.2d 1287 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1982)
State v. Sims
445 N.E.2d 235 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1981)
State v. Harrelson
283 S.E.2d 168 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1981)
State v. Looney
240 S.E.2d 612 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1978)
Lamazares v. Valdez
353 So. 2d 1257 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1978)
State v. Finch
235 S.E.2d 819 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Wright
225 S.E.2d 645 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1976)
Herman v. Vigil
464 P.2d 353 (Court of Appeals of Arizona, 1970)
Mosley v. Commonwealth
420 S.W.2d 679 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1967)
State v. Wilson
152 S.E.2d 223 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1967)
State v. Klueber
132 N.W.2d 847 (South Dakota Supreme Court, 1965)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 S.E.2d 50, 232 N.C. 727, 1950 N.C. LEXIS 612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-armstrong-nc-1950.