State v. Forehand

HEDRICK, Judge.

Defendant’s first three exceptions challenge the admission of testimony of defendant’s 14-year-old daughter tending to implicate both defendant and his wife in the crime charged.

Evidence which is otherwise relevant and competent is not objectionable simply because it tends to discredit or prejudice a defendant in the eyes of the jury. Stansbury, N. C. Evidence 2d, § 80. The testimony of the 14-year-old victim of the crime charged challenged by these three exceptions was obviously relevant and competent.

Exceptions 5, 6 and 16 challenge the admission of testimony tending to show…