State v. ThomasState v. Thomas
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Mallard
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motiоn for judgment as of nonsuit. We hold that there was sufficient evidence tо require submission of the case to the jury.
Defendant also contends that the trial court committed error when it allowed evidencе to be admitted of other crimes committed by defendant while operating an automobile. The defendant contends that although he later took the witness stand and testified, this does not make such evidеnce competent because he may not have testified or offered any evidence, except for this error.
Statе’s witness Whitehurst, who testified that he was a member of the State Highway Patrol, was permitted to testify, over objection, as follows:
“Q. Trooper, in reference to that license check, will you please tell us the status of the defendant’s driving license on the date of thе accident?
A. His license were in a state of suspension.
*10 Q. How long were they suspended for?
A. The license were taken on February 20, 1970, and his license were suspended on March 8, 1970, and were suspended until May 8,1971.
Q. Now, during that suspension was there another conviction?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What was that conviction for?
A. Reckless Driving.
Q. Is there a suspеnsion for driving while license were suspended?
A. Yes, sir. That was November 9, 1970.
Q. And did that result in the further suspensiоn of his driver’s license?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What further period of suspension did that result in?
A. His license were suspended for a further pеriod of until May 7, 1973.
Q. Would you please repeat the dates of license suspension conviction?
A. That was in New Bern District Court, November 9, 1970.”
In Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, § 91, it is said: “Evidence оf other offenses is inadmissible if its only relevancy is to show the charаcter of the accused or his disposition to commit an offense of the nature of the one charged; but if it tends to prove аny other relevant fact, it will not be excluded merely because it also shows him to havé been guilty of an independent crime.”
The defendant contends, and we agree, that when the solicitor continued to ask this witness questions as to other crimes the defendant had beеn convicted of prior to the time that the defendant testified, such was prejudicial error. It violated the rule that evidence оf other offenses is inadmissible if its *11 only relevancy is to show the charаcter of the accused or his disposition to commit an offеnse of the nature of the one charged. While the fact that thе defendant’s driver’s license was in a state of suspension was competent as evidence in the case, the reasons for thе suspension were incompetent and their admission into evidenсe amounted to prejudicial error. The fact that the defеndant may have been convicted of reckless driving on another occasion while his driver’s license was suspended and for driving while his driver’s license was suspended does not come within any of the exсeptions to the general rule excluding evidence of the commission of other offenses as set out in State v. McClain, 240 N.C. 171, 81 S.E. 2d 364 (1954). Moreover, we are of the opinion that the fact that defendant was later prоperly cross-examined concerning his prior convictions for the purpose of impeaching his credibility did not cure the errоr. If we were to hold otherwise, it would amount to a condonation of a practice which the rules of evidence forbid.
Defеndant has other assignments of error, some of which have merit but which mаy not recur on a new trial, and we have not considered them.
We are of the opinion and so hold that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.
New trial.
Judges Brock and Britt concur.