Court Opinion

ID: 9856617
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 06:52:13.115115+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:06.331882
License: Public Domain

PARKER, J.,
dissenting. The majority opinion holds that defendant is entitled to a new trial by reason of the admission in evidence over his objections and exceptions of testimony of the State’s witness Foushee tending to show that defendant was a'.sex deviate — the testimony is set forth in the majority opinion and is.not repeated here. The ma*706jority opinion holds that such evidence was incompetent, prejudicial to defendant, and entitles him to a new trial. The reason assigned is the general rule that in a prosecution for a particular crime, the State cannot offer evidence tending to show that the accused has committed another distinct, independent, or separate offense. S. v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364.
In S. v. McClain, supra, this is stated: “The general rule excluding evidence of the commission of other offenses by the accused is subject to certain well recognized exceptions, which are said to be founded on as sound reasons as the rule itself. 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, section 683. The exceptions are stated in the numbered paragraphs, which immediately follow.” Ervin, J., the writer of the opinion in this case, with his usual clarity and correctness, sets forth eight exceptions, most of which exceptions are supported by superplenary authority. In my opinion, taking into consideration the entire conversation between defendant and Foushee, all the evidence in respect to the relationship between defendant and Foushee, and all the attendant circumstances, this evidence is competent under Judge Ervin’s paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 5. I vote to affirm the judgment below.
Shaep, J., concurs in dissent.