State v. Bowser
Decision Date | 04 May 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 79.,79. |
Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE. v. BOWSER. |
Appeal from Superior Court, Washington County; Leo Carr, Judge.
Z. T. Bowser was charged with failure to support his illegitimate child and from the judgment he appeals.
No error.
Criminal prosecution begun in Recorder's court of Washington County, North Carolina, upon a warrant dated 4 September, 1948, on affidavit of Rulie Lee Brown, sworn to on same date, charging: "That Z. T. Bowser, at and in said county, on the __day of September, 1948, with force and arms, unlawfully and wilfully did neglect, fail and refuse to support his illegitimate child, born on or about August 4, 1948, and begotten by him upon the body of the said Rulie Lee Brown, the said Z. T. Bowser being the father of said child, contrary to the statute, etc.", heard and tried in Superior Court of Washington County on appeal thereto from judgment on conviction an said Recorder's court.
After the jury was impaneled in Superior Court, and before the State offered any evidence, defendant moved that the case be remanded to the Juvenile court for trial upon the ground that the Superior Court, at term time, was without jurisdiction of the case for that at the time of the conception of the child in question, defendant was under sixteen years of age. In this connection it was agreed by counsel for defendant and the Solicitor for the State that defendant was born on 18 May, 1932; that the child in question was born 4 August, 1948; and that the warrant alleges the willful failure to maintain and support said child in the month of September 1948.
The court denied the motion, and defendant excepts.
The evidence offered by the State on the trial below, in the light most favorable to the State, is reflected in extracts of the testimony of the witnesses, as follows:
The prosecutrix, Rulie Lee Brown, testified on direct examination;
Then on cross-examination, she continued:
The State also introduced the child in evidence for the purpose of letting the witness exhibit it to the jury. Exception.
John Brown, the father of prosecutrix, testified on direct examination: ."
Then, continuing on the cross-examination, this witness testified:
And the mother of prosecutrix testified: '
On the other hand, defendant, reserving exception to denial of his motions made (1) a second time to remand the case to the Juvenile court, and (2) for judgment as in case of nonsuit, and testifying in behalf of himself, admitted (1) that John Brown, the father of prosecutrix, came to him at Margolis Store and asked that he "give support to the baby"; (2) that he has contributed nothing to the support of the baby, and does not intend to do so; and (3) that he has refused to contribute anything to the support of the child; but he denies in material aspect all other testimony offered by the State.
Motion of defendant for judgment as of nonsuit, at close of all the evidence, was denied and he excepted.
The court, at the close of the evidence and on motion of Solicitor for the State, permitted the warrant to be amended by inserting the word "maintain" in the charge as set out in the warrant, "to the end that the warrant may track the language of the statute". Defendant excepted.
The case was then submitted to the jury on these issues, which were answered by the jury as indicated:
Thereupon the court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ellis, 1
...224 N.C. 779, 32 S.E.2d 333; State v. Stiles, 228 N.C. 137, 44 S.E. 2d 728; State v. Ellison, 230 N.C. 59, 52 S.E.2d 9; State v. Bowser, 230 N.C. 330, 53 S.E.2d 282; State v. Robinson, 236 N.C. 408, 72 S.E.2d '* * * three issues are required to be submitted in a single case, and * * * the t......
- Williams v. Johnson
- Williams v. Johnson
-
Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Curry
... ... Our State Supreme Court directed the defendant's name be stricken from the complaint since there were no allegations against that defendant ... Here, as in ... ...