State v. Pinkham

BRITT, Judge.

Defendant assigns as error the court’s extensive questioning of defendant’s witness, contending that the court violated the provisions of G.S. 1-180. The assignment of error is well taken.

The evidence showed that the alleged offense occurred around 3:00 p.m. and that Crooms was carried to the hospital that evening where he was examined around 10:30 p.m. by Dr. Van dooren, a urologist. The State did not call Dr. Van dooren as a witness but defendant did.

After describing his examination of Crooms, the witness stated that in his opinion “Thomas Crooms was not sexually violated per…