¶1 The only identification testimony tending to prove that defendants were the robbers came from Douglas Chestnut. During cross-examination Chestnut denied that he was a homosexual and that he had propositioned the defendants on a previous occasion. Thereafter, the court refused to permit defendant Becraft to: testify that on a previous occasion Chestnut had propositioned him and that he, Becraft, had refused.
¶2 Defendants contend that the testimony which was offered to show that Becraft had rejected Chestnut’s homosexual proposition should have been allowed because it tends to show bias on the part of the witness towards defendant, Becraft. We agree. The State’s case depends on the credibility of the witness, Chestnut, the only witness who could identify the alleged robbers. While there is strong evidence of guilt by defendants we cannot say that the exclusion of this testimony was not prejudicial. See State v. Faust, 254 N.C. 101, 118 S.E. 2d 769 (1961); State v. Hart, 239 N.C. 709, 80 S.E. 2d 901 (1954).
¶3 New trial.