State v. Raynor

• Decision Date: 20 November 1907
• Citation: 59 S.E. 344,145 N.C. 472
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE. v. RAYNOR.

59 S.E. 344

145 N.C. 472

STATE.

v.RAYNOR.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 20, 1907.

1. Seduction — Criminal Responsibility — Evidence—Promise of Marriage.

In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, the testimony of prosecutrix that she yielded on defendant's promise of marriage is competent.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Seduction, § 77.]

2. Criminal Law—Evidence—Admissions.

In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, the answer of the prosecutrix to a question why she yielded that she could not help it, and that he said he was not trying to fool her, but was going to marry her, was competent as an admission.

3. Same—Trial—Reception of Evidence-Repetition of Answer.

In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, it was discretionary with the court to allow the prosecutrix to repeat her testimony that she yielded on defendant's promise of marriage.

4. Seduction — Corroboration of Prosecutrix—Sufficiency.

Where the mother of prosecutrix testified that defendant admitted in her hearing the promise and the seduction, the testimony of prosecutrix is sufficiently corroborated.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Seduction, §§ 83-86.]

5. Same—Instructions—Refusal.

A requested instruction on the necessity of support to the testimony of prosecutrix, stating that her statements to her mother, after the fact, that defendant had promised to marry her, were not sufficient support, was properly refused as misleading, where there was evidence not only of such statements to the mother when alone with prosecutrix, but also that statements of the seduction and promise to marry had been made by prosecutrix to her mother in the presence of defendant without contradiction by him.

6. Same — Elements of Offense — Time of Promise.

It is immaterial that the promise was made previous to the time of the seduction, if defendant made use of it to induce the prosecutrix to yield her person to him.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 43, Seduction, § 58.]

Appeal from Superior Court, Pender County; Long, Judge.

Cephas Raynor was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and he appeals. Affirmed.

R. G. Grady and W. T. Dortch, for appellant.

Hayden Clement, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, J. The defendant was indicted and convicted of seduction under promise of marriage (Revisal 1905, § 3354), and appealed.

He assigns four errors, as follows:

(1) The court erred in permitting the prosecutrix to answer the question asked by the solicitor, to wit, "Why did you yield to the defendant, and have intercourse with him that night?" The witness had previously stated that they had sexual intercourse at the time mentioned. She answered: "I could not help it He kept right on at me. I told him he was trying to fool me into it. He said he was not, that he was going to marry me." The answer was also objected to. The court overruled the objections, and admitted the evidence. We do not see why it was not competent and relevant. It tended to prove directly the very fact in issue. As an admission, it was clearly competent. State v. Lawhorn, 88 N.C. 634; State v. Horton, 100 N.C. 445. 6 S. E. 238, 6 Am. St. Rep. 613. The fact that it was a repetition of evidence to the same effect previously introduced did not render it incompetent. It was in the discretion of the court to permit the witness to repeat her answer, if it was thought that the jury had not understood her, or for any other good reason.

(2) That the court erred In refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that there is no evidence in the case supporting the testimony of Eddie Jones, the prosecutrix, as to the promise of marriage and the jury should acquit. There was evidence, we think, sufficient to support the witness in her statement that the defendant had seduced her under a promise of marriage. Her mother, Catherine Jones, testified that the defendant had admitted, in her presence and hearing, that he had made the promise, and thereby accomplished the ruin of her daughter. This admission was made to the prosecutrix, in the hearing of her mother, when she was reproving him for his vile conduct and his faithlessness. She was then pleading with him to save her from the consequent disgrace. There was other testimony which was competent to be considered by the jury in this connection. The defendant admitted the seduction.

3) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury, as requested by the defendant, that the supporting...