State v. Guinn, 233 S.E.2d 73 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977). · Go Syfert
State v. Guinn, 233 S.E.2d 73 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Cited for

No citing cases on record.

Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State of North Carolina
v.
James Edward Guinn
No. 7629SC720.
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Mar 16, 1977.
Published opinion
233 S.E.2d 73
1977 N.C. App. LEXIS 2004
Attorney General Edmisten by Associate Attorney Cath-arine Biggs Arrowood for the State. , Davis & Kimel by Horace M. Kimel, Jr., for defendant appellant.
Britt, Clark, Hedrick.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
Pinpoint authority: bottom 90%
Citer courts: Court of Appeals of North Caro… (1)
CLARK, Judge.

The sole issue upon appeal is whether it was error to allow defendant to be cross-examined about the two prior convictions which were elements of the offense and which he had admitted out of the presence of the jury.

G.S. 15A-928(c) (1) provides that

“(1) If the defendant admits the previous conviction, that element of the offense charged in the indictment or information is established, [and] no evidence in support thereof may be adduced by the State . . . . ”

G.S. 15A-928(c) (2) provides that

“ . . . This section applies only to proof of a prior conviction when it is an element of the crime charged, and does not prohibit the State from introducing proof of prior convictions when otherwise permitted under the rules of evidence.”

Defendant contends that these provisions allow the State to cross-examine only about prior convictions for offenses other than those which are elements of the crime for which defendant is on trial. We disagree. When the defendant takes the stand, he is subject to impeachment by cross-examination as to prior convictions as is any other witness. 1 Stansbury, N. C. Evidence § 112 (Brandis Rev. 1973) and cases cited therein. G.S. ISA-928 (c) (1) prohibits only the introduction of evidence of previous convictions adduced in support of an element of the offense charged. The evidence here was not adduced for that purpose, but for the purpose of impeachment. G.S. 15A-928(c) (2) reinforces this point by providing that proof of prior convictions may be introduced “when otherwise permitted under the rules of evidence.” Such proof is permissible under the rule allowing impeachment of a defendant who takes the stand.

No error.

Judges Britt and Hedrick concur.