State v. Campbell, 20 N.C. App. 281 (1973)

Dec. 19, 1973 · North Carolina Court of Appeals · No. 735SC822

20 N.C. App. 281

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JOE CAMPBELL

No. 735SC822

(Filed 19 December 1973)

Criminal Law § 86 — prior convictions — examination of defendant

The solicitor was properly allowed to cross-examine defendant about specific prior convictions without first inquiring as to whether there had been any prior convictions.

Appeal from Rouse, Judge, 21 May 1973 Session of Superior Court held in New Hanover County.

Defendant was indicted for assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury. He entered a plea of not guilty. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of the lesser charge of assault with a deadly weapon inflicting serious injury. Defendant was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment. From this judgment, he has appealed.

Attorney General Morgan, by Assistant Attorney General James E. Magner, Jr., for the State.

Herbert P. Scott for defendant appellant.

BALEY, Judge.

Defendant testified in his own behalf and was cross-examined about prior criminal convictions. He complains in his only assignment of error that the State did not first inquire about whether there were any convictions before proceeding to examine him about the specific convictions — all of which he admitted.

For purposes of impeachment a defendant in a criminal case who takes the stand as a witness in his own behalf may be cross-examined with respect to prior conviction of crime. State v. Miller, 281 N.C. 70, 189 S.E. 2d 618; State v. Blackwell, 276 N.C. 714, 174 S.E. 2d 534, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 946; 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence (Brandis rev.), § 112.

While defendant may no longer be asked if he has been indicted or arrested for a specific offense, State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174, “the decision in Williams did not change the rule that for purposes of impeachment a witness may be asked whether he has committed specific criminal acts or been guilty of specified reprehensible conduct.” State v. Gainey, 280 N.C. 366, 373, 185 S.E. 2d 874, 879; accord, 1 Stansbury, supra, § 111.

Control of the cross-examination was within the discretion of the trial court, and we find no abuse of discretion.

No error.

Chief Judge Brock and Judge Parker concur.