State v. Jefferson
| Decision Date | 30 June 1846 |
| Citation | 28 N.C. 305,6 Ired. 305 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | THE STATE v. JEFFERSON, A SLAVE. |
On a trial for rape, the prisoner may give in evidence that the woman had been his concubine, or that he had been suffered to take indecent liberties with her.
But he cannot give in evidenee, to prove her a strumpet, that she had had criminal connection with one or more particular individuals. It is a question of character and the evidence, as in other questions of character, must be of a general nature.
On a trial for rape, the acts and declarations of the husband of the woman, on whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, are not admissible to discredit the wife, examined as a witness.
A confession, made by a prisoner, while in prison, is evidence against him, provided it be the prisoner's own act, not unduly obtained by promises or threats.
Appeal from the Superior Court of Law of Mecklenburg County, at the Spring Term, 1846, his Honor Judge CALDWELL presiding.
The following are the facts, so far as relates to the questions of law submitted to this Court.
The prisoner, a slave of one Wallace, was convicted of a rape upon one Elizabeth C. Rogers, a white woman. On the trial she was a witness, and proved the offence fully. On the part of the prisoner, it was admitted that he had connexion with the woman; but he alleged that it was by her consent, and that there had been a previous criminal intimacy between them. In order to establish it, the prisoner offered to prove by a witness, that, on a certain night, some time before the alleged rape, he and the prisoner went from Wallace's towards the residence of Harvey Rogers, the husband of Elizabeth C. Rogers, and that after having gone together some distance to a neighbor's house, the witness stopped, and the prisoner went on; and after having been absent some time, the prisoner returned and told the witness that he had been to the house of Rogers, who was from home, and had been admitted by his wife. Upon objection from the Solicitor for the State, the Court rejected this evidence.
After an answer in the negative to a question put to Mrs. Rogers on her cross-examination, whether she had not allowed the prisoner to put his hands on her in a free and familiar manner, it was proved by another slave of Wallace, on the part of the prisoner, that he had frequently seen the prisoner treat her in that manner. And the prisoner offered further to prove that the witness, Rogers, had permitted other negro men to kiss her and take other liberties with her. But upon objection by the Solicitor, the Court rejected this latter evidence also.
The prisoner offered further to prove, that Harvey Rogers, the husband, had in the presence of his wife offered to compound this prosecution with Wallace, the owner of the prisoner. But the Solicitor objected to this evidence, and the Court refused to admit it.
It was then proposed, on the part of the State, to give in evidence the confession of the prisoner; and, for that purpose, one Springs was examined. He stated that on one occasion, after the prisoner had been committed to jail on this charge, he saw the prisoner and asked him to whom he belonged, and why he was in prison; to which the other replied, that he belonged to Wallace, and was in jail for a rape on Mrs. Rogers. The witness, having heard something of the case, then said, “Yes, I have heard of you; and it is said you choked her, and had your will of her;” and the prisoner answered, that he did. The witness said that he then asked the prisoner why he did so, and the latter replied, that he supposed he must have been drunk; and that to the question from the witness, “Did you know it would hang you?” the prisoner replied that he did not. To this evidence, the counsel for the prisoner objected; but the Court received it.
After sentence of death upon conviction, the prisoner appealed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Apley
...5 Am. St. Rep. 381;Shartzer v. State, 63 Md. 149, 52 Am. Rep. 501;Pleasant v. State, 15 Ark. 624;Wilson v. State, 16 Ind. 392;State v. Jefferson, 28 N. C. 305;State v. Ward, 73 Iowa, 532, 35 N. W. 617;Camp v. State, 3 Ga. 417;Commonwealth v. Regan, 105 Mass. 593;Commonwealth v. Harris, 131 ......
-
State v. Stegmann, 38
... ... 1973); State v. Grundler [286 N.C. 648] and Jelly, 251 N.C. 177, 111 S.E.2d 1 (1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 917, 80 S.Ct. 670, 4 L.Ed.2d 738 (1960); State v. Hairston, 121 N.C. 579, 28 S.E. 492 (1897); State v. Daniel, 87 N.C. 507 (1882); State v. Jefferson, 28 N.C. 305 (1846). In every criminal prosecution a defendant may offer evidence of his good character and have it considered as substantive evidence in his favor. On the same theory, in a prosecution for rape, where the credibility of the prosecutrix is attacked either by evidence or by ... ...
-
State v. Grundler
... ... State v. Connor, 142 N.C. 700, 705-706, 55 S.E. 787; State v. Daniel, 87 N.C. 507, 508-509. But we have held that specific acts of unchastity with persons, other than defendant, are inadmissible in rape cases. State v. Jefferson, 28 N.C. 305, 307. This case is listed in 140 A.L.R. 386, annotation referred to above, as supporting the minority view. We do not so construe it. In that case it is said: 'No doubt, too, that it would have been proper to receive evidence, ... that the woman was a strumpet, upon similar ... ...
-
State v. Ogden
...4 So. 775, 5 Am.St.Rep. 381; Shartzer v. State (Md.) 52 Am.Rep. 501; Pleasant v. State, supra; Wilson v. State, 16 Ind. 392; State v. Jefferson, 28 N.C. 305; State v. Ward, 73 Iowa, 532, 35 N.W. 617; Camp v. State, 3 Kelly, 417; Com. v. Regan, 105 Mass. 593; Com. v. Harris, 131 Mass. 336; P......