# State v. Dennison

> Court of Appeals of North Carolina · April 6, 2004 · 163 N.C. App. 375

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583191

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DARREN WILLIAM DENNISON, Defendant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of North Carolina
- **Decided:** April 6, 2004
- **Citations:** 163 N.C. App. 375; 594 S.E.2d 82; 2004 N.C. App. LEXIS 398
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Timmons-Goodson
- **Judges:** Elmore, Hudson, Timmons-Goodson
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583191

## Opinion text

TIMMONS-GOODSON, Judge,
dissenting.
Because I conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to cross-examine defendant with specific bad acts and elicit testimony from defendant’s former girlfriend, I respectfully dissent.
“A criminal defendant is entitled to introduce evidence of his good character [on direct], thereby placing his character at issue. The State in rebuttal can then introduce evidence of defendant’s bad character.” State v. Roseboro, 351 N.C. 536, 553 , 528 S.E.2d 1, 12 , cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1019 (2000). As the Court stated in State v. Gappins, 320 N.C. 64, 69-70 , 357 S.E.2d 654, 658 (1987), Rule 404(a)(1) limits the admission of character evidence introduced on direct to “pertinent traits” of character. However, in contrast to the common law, Rule 405(a) specifically allows the prosecutor to cross-examine a witness concerning relevant and specific instances of the defendant’s conduct when rebutting character evidence. Id. at 70 , 357 S.E.2d at 658 .
In Gappins , the Court concluded that the defendant’s “reputation for peacefulness” was “a pertinent trait of his character” in a murder trial. Id. After “character witnesses testified concerning the defendant’s reputation for peacefulness, the prosecutor asked the witnesses on cross examination whether they had heard or knew about certain instances including acts of domestic cruelty and rowdy and abusive conduct by the defendant when he was drinking.” Id. at 69 , 357 S.E.2d at 658 . The Court held that these quéstions were permissible under the Rules of Evidence. Id.
Similarly, in State v. Garner, 330 N.C. 273, 289-90 , 410 S.E.2d 861, 870 (1991), the defendant “put his character into evidence” by “paint[ing] a picture of himself as a level-headed, peaceful individual who constantly was fending off verbal and physical attacks from the victim.” The Court concluded that it was proper for the prosecution to cross-examine defendant “concerning this ‘pertinent’ trait of character,” and the Court held that the trial court did not err in allowing *385 the prosecution to elicit details of the defendant’s prior assault convictions. Id. at 290 , 410 S.E.2d at 870 .
As the Court noted in Garner , these holdings are “consistent with two other well-established principles of law.” 33 N.C. at 290, 410 S.E.2d at 870 . In State v. Albert, 303 N.C. 173, 177 , 277 S.E.2d 439, 441 (1981), a pre-Rules case, the Court stated:
[T]he law wisely permits evidence not otherwise admissible to be offered to explain or rebut evidence elicited by the defendant himself. Where one party introduces evidence as to a particular fact or transaction, the other party is entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof, even though such latter evidence would be incompetent or irrelevant had it been offered initially.
(citations omitted). In State v. Warren, 327 N.C. 364, 373 , 395 S.E.2d 116, 121-22 (1990), the Court stated:
Generally, much latitude is given counsel on cross-examination to test matters related by a witness on direct examination. The scope of cross-examination is subject to two limitations: (1) the discretion of the trial court; and (2) the questions offered must be asked in good faith. Furthermore, the questions of the State on cross-examination are deemed proper unless the record discloses that the questions were asked in bad faith.
(citations omitted).
Therefore, where a defendant in a murder case presents evidence that he is peaceful or has a nonviolent disposition, that evidence goes to a “pertinent trait” of his character. The door is thus deemed “open” to the prosecution, which may introduce its own character evidence on cross to rebut the defendant’s evidence.
In the case sub judice, defendant’s witnesses “painted [him] as calm, level-headed, and doing everything he could to avoid a confrontation, reacting to [the victim’s] provocations with logic and a lack of concern.” Defendant also presented evidence that he “don’t like this stuff,” and that he is “not into [fighting].” Therefore, defendant introduced evidence concerning a “pertinent trait” of his character and thus opened the door for rebuttal by the prosecution.
Nevertheless, the majority argues that the evidence was strictly limited to the state of mind of defendant “on the night in question." *386 (emphasis in original). However, our Supreme Court has allowed the prosecution to rebut a favorable inference established by a defendant on direct with specific evidence of its own during cross-examination. State v. Bullard, 312 N.C. 129, 157-58 , 322 S.E.2d 370, 386 (1984). In the case sub judice, even if defendant’s witnesses were asked only about defendant’s character on the evening of the murder, the impression these questions created in the minds of the jury is not so limited. Instead, the clear inference from the testimony is that defendant possesses a peaceful character. Furthermore, even if the majority’s argument is accepted, “[t]he admission of relevant evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court.” State v. Hall, 134 N.C. App. 417, 427 , 517 S.E.2d 907, 914 (1999), disc. review denied, 351 N.C. 364 , 542 S.E.2d 647 (2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1085 (2001). Additionally, a trial court’s evidentiary ruling should be overturned “only upon a showing that the ruling was so arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Id. (citation omitted).
Considering the discretion granted to the trial court in ruling on evidentiary issues, in the case sub judice, the trial court’s decision to allow the prosecution to cross-examine defendant with specific bad acts and elicit testimony from defendant’s former girlfriend was correct. The ruling was not “so arbitrary it could not have been the result of a reasoned decision.” Id. Given the testimony of defendant’s witnesses and the logical inferences created therein, the trial court was reasonable in believing that defendant was attempting to paint himself as a peaceful and nonviolent individual — a pertinent character trait in a murder trial with self-defense undertones. Therefore, the defendant opened the door to cross-examination and rebuttal by the prosecution, and the trial court did not err in allowing the prosecution to rebut defendant’s evidence with specific bad act evidence of its own.
Accordingly, I dissent from the majority opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9583191. Public record. Not legal advice.