reversing this Court's decision and adopting Judge Wynn's dissent in State v. Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5

reversing this Court's decision and adopting Judge Wynn's dissent in State v. Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5

reversing opinion of Court of Appeals based upon the reasons stated in the dissent

reversing State v. Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5 for the reasons stated in the dissent

reversing this Court's decision and adopting Judge Wynn's dissent in State v. Wilkerson, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5

In Wilkerson, we adopted the dissenting opinion of the Court of Appeals, which concluded that evidence of the defendant's prior convictions was inadmissible where the state had also introduced evidence of the underlying facts and circumstances of the convictions.

In State v. Wilkerson, 356 N.C. 418, 571 S.E.2d 583, rev'g 148 N.C.App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5 (2002) (per curiam), our Supreme Court adopted Judge Wynn's dissent in the Court of Appeals opinion and established that certified copies of prior convictions were not admissible under Rule 404(b).

In Wilkerson, the jury convicted defendant of possession with intent to sell or deliver cocaine and trafficking in cocaine.

In Wilkerson, the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed this Court's decision, 148 N.C. App. 310, 559 S.E.2d 5 (2002), per curiam for the reasons stated in Judge Wynn's dissent, which opined that the bare fact of a prior conviction, elicited from the clerk of court only for the purpose of showing intent under Rule 404(b), is irrelevant and should be excluded by Rule 402.

In Wilkerson, the other crimes evidence presented by the detectives, and introduced for the limited purpose of showing the defendant's knowledge and intent to sell cocaine, was admissible (assuming it met the 403 balancing test) whether or not the defendant testified.

In Wilkerson, two officers testified to the facts and circumstances surrounding prior offenses committed by the defendant and a deputy clerk testified regarding the bare facts of the defendant's prior convictions arising out of those offenses.

In Wilkerson, "testimony [from two law enforcement officers] concerning defendant's prior crimes... was admitted under Rule 404(b) to show defendant's intent and knowledge with respect to the charged drug offenses."

In Wilkerson, the Deputy Clerk of Court testified that the defendant had prior convictions on file for possession of cocaine and sale or delivery of cocaine, and two law enforcement officers testified to the circumstances of these prior crimes.

In Wilkerson, the State had the Deputy Clerk of the Superior Court take the stand and read into the record a list of the prior convictions of the defendant that were on file.