State v. Guest
| Decision Date | 23 April 1888 |
| Citation | 6 S.E. 253,100 N.C. 410 |
| Parties | State v. Guest. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where two defendants are indicted for fornication and adultery, and the female pleads guilty, her husband is a competent witness against the other defendant.1
On the trial of a defendant for fornication and adultery it is not error to admit evidence of acts committed anterior to the two years before the finding of the indictment, the limit prescribed by statute, nor as to acts committed outside of the county; such evidence being admissible to aid the jury in determining the character of the acts charged in the indictment, of which there must have been some evidence.
It is immaterial that an indictment against two defendants for fornication and adultery erroneously describe one defendant, a female, as a " spinster, " and such error is no ground for arrest of judgment.
Appeal from superior court, Transylvania county; MacRae, Judge.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The defendant and one A. E. Wilson were indicted in the superior court of Transylvania county for fornication and adultery. The female defendant pleaded guilty, and the defendant Guest was tried, upon a plea of not guilty, before MacRae, J., at spring term, 1888, of said court. One W. P. Wilson, the husband of the female defendant, was offered as a witness on behalf of the state, and objected to on the ground that he was incompetent. The court held that, the wife having already pleaded guilty, and not being on trial, he was competent. The defendant excepted. Witness testified that the defendant Guest commenced coming to witness' house four or five years ago. Defendant objected, and the court instructed the jury that they could only consider testimony as to acts committed previous to two years before the bill was found, for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether the defendant had committed the offense charged within two years. Defendant excepted. Witness testified that the defendant continued to visit at his house; that they had been friends, but the suspicions of the witness were aroused by the frequency of the defendant's visits, and he forbade defendant coming to his house, but he continued to come. He would stay away awhile, and then come back again. He staid all day at witness' house after being forbidden. Witness sent him a written notice to stay away; and soon afterwards, during last fall, the two defendants went off together, and were gone for two months, when they were arrested and brought back. John Lewis, a witness for the state, testified to carrying defendants in a wagon together to Hendersonville, and to their sleeping together at that place; that he was paid by defendant Guest for carrying them. One Love testified that he went to Atlanta last fall, with a state's warrant, and had both defendants, whom he found living together as man and wife, arrested, and brought back to this county. Defendant objected to testimony of witness as to acts of adultery in Atlanta, and this testimony was admitted for the purpose of enabling the jury to determine whether the defendant had been guilty of the offense-charged against him in Transylvania county. Defendant excepted. After other testimony the court instructed the jury that as to acts testified to as having taken place outside of the county, or at a period of time more than two years prior to the finding of the bill, they could only consider such testimony for the purpose of enabling them to determine whether the defendant was in the habit of having sexual intercourse with the other defendant in the county within two years. There was a verdict of guilty. The defendant moved in arrest of judgment, on theground that the female defendant is described in the indictment as a "spinster, " whereas it appeared by the proof that she is a married woman. Motion denied and defendant excepted. Judgment and appeal.
The first exception is to the competency of the husband of the co-defendant to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...44 Atl. 850; State v. Jackson, 65 N. J. Law, 62, 46 Atl. 767; State v. Kemp, 87 N. C. 538; State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; State v. Guest, 100 N. C. 410, 6 S. E. 253; State v. Dukes, 119 N. C. 782, 25 S. E. 786; Commonwealth v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 Atl. 123; State v. Potter, 52 Vt. 33; Cran......
-
State v. McClain
...v. Chancy, 110 N.C. 507, 14 S.E. 780; State v. Stubbs, 108 N.C. 774, 13 S.E. 90; State v. Parish, 104 N.C. 679, 10 S.E. 457; State v. Guest, 100 N.C. 410, 6 S.E. 253; State v. Pippin, 88 N.C. 646; State v. Kemp, 87 N.C. 538; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 691 8. In prosecutions for continuing, ......
-
State v. Davis
...re-codifications. We think the question should be regarded as definitely settled against the defendant's contention. In State v. Guest, 100 N.C. 410, 6 S.E. 253, 254, was said: 'In the case of State v. Phipps, 76 N.C. 203, a nol. pros. was entered as to the female defendant, and she was all......
-
Powell v. Strickland
...64 N.C. 54 (opinion by Justice Settle), and for the same reason. See, also, State v. Phipps, 76 N.C. 203, cited with approval in State v. Guest, supra, establishing the same general rule. In the Phipps Case, the court says: "The policy of legislation leading to this result is a matter for t......