State v. Redfern

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Redfern

185 S.E.2d 6, 13 N.C. App. 230, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1206

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedDecember 15, 1971

DocketNo. 7119SC706

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 185 S.E.2d 6 (State v. Redfern) 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. Redfern, 185 S.E.2d 6, 13 N.C. App. 230, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1206 (N.C. Ct. App. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether it was error for the trial court to allow the Solicitor to question the defendant, at some length, as to prior convictions.

At the trial defendant testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination the defendant testified that he had been convicted of assault, but that he did not know how many times. He was then questioned, at some length, about specific previous convictions dating to 1945.

[231]*231The defendant contends that the State was bound by his answer that he had been convicted of assault, but he did not know how many times and that the Solicitor should not have been permitted to question defendant further concerning prior convictions.

When a defendant voluntarily becomes a witness, he may be cross-examined with respect to previous convictions, but the answers are conclusive and are admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness. State v. Blackwell, 276 N.C. 714, 174 S.E. 2d 534 (1970), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 946 (1970). Whether the cross-examination goes too far or is unfair rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Neal, 222 N.C. 546, 23 S.E. 2d 911 (1943). The defendant in this case admitted prior convictions, but did not recall the exact number. His contention that the Solicitor was bound by the answer and could not inquire further is without merit. Had the defendant denied any prior convictions he could not have been contradicted by independent evidence. State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E. 2d 230 (1944). Here, however, the defendant admitted the prior convictions. The Solicitor has the right to “ ‘sift the witness’ ”. State v. Robinson, 272 N.C. 271, 158 S.E. 2d 23 (1967). State v. King, supra.

The Solicitor’s questions on cross-examination were proper. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the cross-examination.

We find

No error.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

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

CAMPBELL, Judge.

The sole question involved in this appeal is whether it was error for the trial court to allow the Solicitor to question the defendant, at some length, as to prior convictions.

At the trial defendant testified in his own behalf. On cross-examination the defendant testified that he had been convicted of assault, but that he did not know how many times. He was then questioned, at some length, about specific previous convictions dating to 1945.

[231]*231The defendant contends that the State was bound by his answer that he had been convicted of assault, but he did not know how many times and that the Solicitor should not have been permitted to question defendant further concerning prior convictions.

When a defendant voluntarily becomes a witness, he may be cross-examined with respect to previous convictions, but the answers are conclusive and are admissible as affecting his credibility as a witness. State v. Blackwell, 276 N.C. 714, 174 S.E. 2d 534 (1970), cert, denied, 400 U.S. 946 (1970). Whether the cross-examination goes too far or is unfair rests largely in the sound discretion of the trial judge. State v. Neal, 222 N.C. 546, 23 S.E. 2d 911 (1943). The defendant in this case admitted prior convictions, but did not recall the exact number. His contention that the Solicitor was bound by the answer and could not inquire further is without merit. Had the defendant denied any prior convictions he could not have been contradicted by independent evidence. State v. King, 224 N.C. 329, 30 S.E. 2d 230 (1944). Here, however, the defendant admitted the prior convictions. The Solicitor has the right to “ ‘sift the witness’ ”. State v. Robinson, 272 N.C. 271, 158 S.E. 2d 23 (1967). State v. King, supra.

The Solicitor’s questions on cross-examination were proper. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the cross-examination.

We find

No error.

Judges Morris and Parker concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

185 S.E.2d 6, 13 N.C. App. 230, 1971 N.C. App. LEXIS 1206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-redfern-ncctapp-1971.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack