State v. Becraft

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Becraft

236 S.E.2d 306, 33 N.C. App. 709, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2330

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedJuly 20, 1977

Docket7719SC236

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 236 S.E.2d 306 (State v. Becraft) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Becraft, 236 S.E.2d 306, 33 N.C. App. 709, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2330 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

*710 ARNOLD, Judge.

The only identification testimony tending to prove that defendants were the robbers came from Douglas Chestnut. During cross-examination Chestnut denied that he was a homosexual and that he had propositioned the defendants on a previous occasion. Thereafter, the court refused to permit defendant Becraft to: testify that on a previous occasion Chestnut had propositioned him and that he, Becraft, had refused.

Defendants contend that the testimony which was offered to show that Becraft had rejected Chestnut’s homosexual proposition should have been allowed because it tends to show bias on the part of the witness towards defendant, Becraft. We agree. The State’s case depends on the credibility of the witness, Chestnut, the only witness who could identify the alleged robbers. While there is strong evidence of guilt by defendants we cannot say that the exclusion of this testimony was not prejudicial. See State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 118 S.E. 2d 769 (1961); State v. Hart, 239 N.C. 709, 80 S.E. 2d 901 (1954).

New trial.

Judges Parker and Martin concur.

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

*710 ARNOLD, Judge.

The only identification testimony tending to prove that defendants were the robbers came from Douglas Chestnut. During cross-examination Chestnut denied that he was a homosexual and that he had propositioned the defendants on a previous occasion. Thereafter, the court refused to permit defendant Becraft to: testify that on a previous occasion Chestnut had propositioned him and that he, Becraft, had refused.

Defendants contend that the testimony which was offered to show that Becraft had rejected Chestnut’s homosexual proposition should have been allowed because it tends to show bias on the part of the witness towards defendant, Becraft. We agree. The State’s case depends on the credibility of the witness, Chestnut, the only witness who could identify the alleged robbers. While there is strong evidence of guilt by defendants we cannot say that the exclusion of this testimony was not prejudicial. See State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 118 S.E. 2d 769 (1961); State v. Hart, 239 N.C. 709, 80 S.E. 2d 901 (1954).

New trial.

Judges Parker and Martin concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 S.E.2d 306, 33 N.C. App. 709, 1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-becraft-ncctapp-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack