 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
North Carolina v. Harrington12/3/1985
Defendant brings forward three assignments of error, one relating to questions asked at trial regarding prior convictions and two relating to punishment, challenging (1) the trial court's finding in aggravation that defendant was "grossly impaired" and (2) a condition of probation. We find no error.
I
State Trooper Davis saw defendant drive by at 1:00 a.m. and began following him, originally because he saw a "state-owned" license plate on defendant's car. Davis followed defendant about one-quarter mile, observing him come to an abrupt stop, make a wide left turn, and weave between two southbound lanes. Davis stopped defendant. Davis noticed that defendant had a strong odor of alcohol about him, his eyes were red and watery, and he walked unsteadily. Defendant failed all four field sobiety tests, and had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .14 when tested approximately forty minutes later. Davis testified that defendant told him he had had four or five mixed drinks within four hours of the stop, and admitted being under the influence. Defendant testified that he had only drunk one beer but had taken a heavy dose of cough medicine to combat a cold, and denied making the admissions to Davis. Upon a jury verdict of guilty of DWI, judgment imposing a sentence of 72 hours active imprisonment, six months imprisonment suspended for five years on conditions of probation, and $1,300 in costs and fines was entered.
II
Defendant testified at trial. On cross examination the prosecutor asked him about his prior convictions:
Q. What have you been convicted of, Mr. Harrington?
A. Speeding. Careless and reckless driving and a misdemeanor larceny.
Q. When were you convicted of careless and reckless driving?
Mr. Miller [Defense Counsel]: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What court were you convicted in?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Do you recall what car you were driving?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Had you been drinking any alcoholic beverages at the time you were arrested on that charge?
Mr. Miller: Objection and motion for mistrial.
The Court: Sustained and denied.
Q. How many times have you been convicted of speeding?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Have you ever been convicted of speeding?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. What else did you say you had been convicted of other than reckless driving and speeding?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Overruled.
A. Misdemeanor larceny.
Q. When was that?
Mr. Miller: Objection.
The Court: Sustained.
Q. Can you tell us what it was you were convicted of stealing?
Mr. Miller: Objection. Motion for mistrial.
The Court: Sustained. Denied. Let's move on. Anything further?
Mrs. Aycock [Prosecutor]: I don't think so. That's all. (Exceptions omitted).
Defendant has excepted and assigned error, arguing that the State's improper questions prejudiced him by innuendo.
A
It is well established that specific acts of bad conduct may be inquired into on cross examination for purposes of impeachment. State v. Purcell, 296 N.C. 728, 252 S.E.2d 772 (1979); State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E.2d 174
Page 1 2 3 4 5 North Carolina DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|