# State v. Williams

> Supreme Court of North Carolina · December 15, 1971 · 279 N.C. 663

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849145

## Case

- **Full name:** State of North Carolina v. Dwight H. Williams
- **Court:** Supreme Court of North Carolina
- **Decided:** December 15, 1971
- **Citations:** 279 N.C. 663; 185 S.E.2d 174; 1971 N.C. LEXIS 908
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Higgins
- **Judges:** Bobbitt, Higgins
- **Cited by:** 167 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/9849145

## Opinion text

Justice Higgins
dissenting.
In the ordinary case I have favored the Federal rule which protects a defendant, when a witness for himself, from cross-examination with respect to other indictments against him. The reason for the Federal rule is that a presumption of innocence is not overcome by an indictment which is only a charge. As pointed out in the Court’s opinion, the State has been permitted to impeach by showing an indictment for a separate offense.
The record in this case indicates to me the admission of the defendant that two and probably three other armed robbery cases against him are now pending in nearby communities. Under the rule the Court now adopts, a defendant may find a filling station operator alone in his place of business, hold him up, take his money, proceed to the next similar place of business, simi-larily attended by a lone operator, and continue the process ad infinitum. In each instance there are two eyewitnesses to the robbery — the victim and the robber. The latter may make a good appearance, raising a doubt as to his guilt and be acquitted. Each succeeding case becomes a repeat performance. Of course, if the robber is acquitted, the acquittal does not impeach him.
*676 I think the proper rule should be that the State may be able to impeach the defendant by showing a trail of indictments following his movements and if he denies the indictments, the State should be able to call witnesses who could identify him as the man who was leaving behind him a trail of robberies.
Of course the time, distance, and similarity of the criminal actions should have weight in showing this course of conduct. I fear the breadth and sweep of this new rule will unduly handicap the State in its criminal prosecutions.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9849145. Public record. Not legal advice.