The evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the State, was sufficient to support a finding that the defendant was handing the gun in a culpably negligent manner at the time it firеd and killed Jones.
State v. Trollinger,
Dеfendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court pеrmitted the State to introduce in evidence, over his objection, the signed statement made 'by Uddyback to the police on January 17, 1963 for the purpose of corroborating his testimony. He argues that this written statement was not, in fact, corrobоrative. Pertinent portions of the statement follow:
“On the afternoon of 17th of January I arrived at 23 Clingman Avenue where Robert Jones, the deceased, and James Brooks were shooting crap. Brooks and Jones got into an argument over $2.00 that Jones was supposed to owe Brooks. Brooks asked for the $2.00 and Jones gоt up and got his hat and coat off the chair and said that he was not going to pаy anyone a damn thing today. At this point Brooks reached behind the couch and came up with a shotgun in one hand. He shoved Jones with both the gun and his other hand, and I jumped up off the couch across the room from Brooks and ran over to Broоks’ left near the door when the gun went off. Jones fell on his left side and rolled over.
“I аsked Brooks, ‘You didn’t shoot him, did you?’ and he said, ‘I don’t know.’ That is when I saw the blood on Jones’ coat. Brooks told Sonny James Clark to go and call an ambulance, which Clark did.
“That is when Brooks took the shotgun and left by the back door. I don’t know which way he went. Jones was still breathing at this time. I stayed until the ambulance came and took Jones to thе hospital.”
*189 Defendant’s objection and motion to strike were directed to thе entire statement.
Although not requested to do so, at the time this statement was admitted, the court instructed the jury that it was offered only for the purpose of corroborating Uddyback if the jury should find that it did corroborate him.
If a prior statement of a witnеss, offered in corroboration of his testimony at the trial, contains additional еvidence going beyond his testimony, the State is not entitled to introduce this “new” evidenсe under a claim of corroboration. Neither may the State impeach or discredit its own witness by introducing his prior contradictory statements under the guise of сorroboration.
State v. Bagley,
We perceive no substantial variance bеtween the signed statement Uddyback gave the police in January and his testimony аt the trial in March. No part of the written statement contradicted his testimony at the trial. Portions of it are not identical but, be that as it may, defendant made no motiоn to strike or exclude any specific part of the statement.
Where portions of a document are competent as corroborating evidence and other parts incompetent, it is the duty of the party objecting to the еvidence to point- out the objectionable portions. Objections to evidence
en masse
will not ordinarily be sustained if any part is competent.
State v. Litteral,
We have considered all of defendant’s exceptions which hаve been properly set out in his assignments of error. The judge fairly and clearly submitted the defendant’s contention that the shooting was accidental. He charged the jury in accordance with the decisions of this court.
State v. Faust,
*190
The sentence imposed was within the discretionary limits of G.S. 14-18.
State v. Richardson,
“While the punishment inflicted is substantial, abuse of discretion has not been shown nor has it been made to appear that the judgment prоnounced comes within the constitutional inhibition against ‘cruel or unusual punishments.’ Constitution of N. C., Art. I, Sec. 14; S. v. Swindell,189 N.C. 151 ,126 S.E. 417 ; S. v. Brackett,218 N.C. 369 ,11 S.E. 2d 146 ; S. v. Daniels,197 N.C. 285 ,148 S.E. 244 , and cases cited.”
In the trial below, we find
No error.