State v. Newland LeFevers

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Newland LeFevers

19 S.E.2d 488, 221 N.C. 184, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 425

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedApril 8, 1942

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 19 S.E.2d 488 (State v. Newland LeFevers) 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. Newland LeFevers, 19 S.E.2d 488, 221 N.C. 184, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 425 (N.C. 1942).

Pincite

Opinion

*185 DbyiN, J.

Edwin Pitts was fatally stabbed by the defendant, following a brief altercation, on the floor of a dance hall at the Yaldese swimming pool. The deceased was at the time unarmed. The defendant pleaded self-defense.

In line with this defense the defendant offered evidence tending to show that the deceased had the general reputation of being a violent and dangerous fighting man, and the State offered evidence in rebuttal. In the course of the cross-examination of a State’s witness on this point the defendant asked the witness if he did not know that the deceased had the general reputation of having held up and robbed a man with firearms. Objection to this question by the State was sustained and the defendant excepted. The witness, if permitted to answer, would have replied, “Yes, in New York at one time he did that, I understand.” The same question was asked of two other witnesses, with like result.

We find no error in the ruling of the court. Edwards v. Price, 162 N. C., 243, 18 S. E., 145. The proffered testimony related to a single instance of lawlessness on the part of the deceased, and its competency may not be held supported by the rule enunciated in S. v. Turpin, 77 N. C., 473. Where there is evidence tending to show that the defendant acted in self-defense, evidence of the general reputation of the deceased for violence may be admitted, but this rule does not render admissible evidence of specific acts of violence which have no connection with the homicide. S. v. Hodgin, 210 N. C., 371, 186 S. E., 495; S. v. Melton, 166 N. C., 442, 81 S. E., 602; Smith v. State, 197 Ala., 193; 121 A. L. R., 382; 26 Am. Jur., 394. “The rule allows a cross-examination as to reputation of a particular trait but not of particular acts.” S. v. Cathey, 170 N. C., 794, 87 S. E., 532.

The only other assignment of error relates to the admission of the testimony of a witness that shortly before the homicide defendant was under the influence of liquor. Objection on this score cannot be sustained.

In the trial we find

No error.

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

*185 DbyiN, J.

Edwin Pitts was fatally stabbed by the defendant, following a brief altercation, on the floor of a dance hall at the Yaldese swimming pool. The deceased was at the time unarmed. The defendant pleaded self-defense.

In line with this defense the defendant offered evidence tending to show that the deceased had the general reputation of being a violent and dangerous fighting man, and the State offered evidence in rebuttal. In the course of the cross-examination of a State’s witness on this point the defendant asked the witness if he did not know that the deceased had the general reputation of having held up and robbed a man with firearms. Objection to this question by the State was sustained and the defendant excepted. The witness, if permitted to answer, would have replied, “Yes, in New York at one time he did that, I understand.” The same question was asked of two other witnesses, with like result.

We find no error in the ruling of the court. Edwards v. Price, 162 N. C., 243, 18 S. E., 145. The proffered testimony related to a single instance of lawlessness on the part of the deceased, and its competency may not be held supported by the rule enunciated in S. v. Turpin, 77 N. C., 473. Where there is evidence tending to show that the defendant acted in self-defense, evidence of the general reputation of the deceased for violence may be admitted, but this rule does not render admissible evidence of specific acts of violence which have no connection with the homicide. S. v. Hodgin, 210 N. C., 371, 186 S. E., 495; S. v. Melton, 166 N. C., 442, 81 S. E., 602; Smith v. State, 197 Ala., 193; 121 A. L. R., 382; 26 Am. Jur., 394. “The rule allows a cross-examination as to reputation of a particular trait but not of particular acts.” S. v. Cathey, 170 N. C., 794, 87 S. E., 532.

The only other assignment of error relates to the admission of the testimony of a witness that shortly before the homicide defendant was under the influence of liquor. Objection on this score cannot be sustained.

In the trial we find

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 S.E.2d 488, 221 N.C. 184, 1942 N.C. LEXIS 425, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-newland-lefevers-nc-1942.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack