Court Opinion

ID: 9611088
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:51:50.513352+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:10.027868
License: Public Domain

Justice EXUM dissenting in part;
I disagree only with that portion of the majority’s opinion holding that it is permissible to cross-examine a witness about alleged crimes for which the witness has been tried and acquitted. The majority relies on the rule that a witness may be asked about prior acts of misconduct for purposes of impeachment. This rule has no application where such acts have been the subject of a criminal prosecution which terminated favorably to the defendant. State v. Sharratt, 29 N.C. App. 199, 223 S.E. 2d 906 (1976), cert. denied, 290 N.C. 554, 226 S.E. 2d 512 (1976).
*453This kind of cross-examination is tantamount to asking the witness about past accusations of crime, a practice which was prohibited in State v. Williams, 279 N.C. 663, 185 S.E. 2d 174 (1971).
When one has been tried for and acquitted of a particular crime that should end the matter for all purposes. A person so acquitted should not be required continually to defend himself against the charge in subsequent criminal proceedings in which he may become involved.
Nevertheless I concur in the result reached by the majority in this case on the ground that the questions asked by the district attorney, albeit improper, were not so prejudicial as to require a new trial. The charge here was for homicide. Questions on cross-examination related to an alleged rape. Further, the defendant appropriately explained to the jury that he did not rape Virginia Pearson and that he had been acquitted of that charge.