State v. Jessup
| Decision Date | 21 May 1941 |
| Docket Number | 649. |
| Citation | 14 S.E.2d 668,219 N.C. 620 |
| Parties | STATE v. JESSUP. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal action tried on bill of indictment charging the defendant with the crime of seduction.
The evidence offered by the State tended to show that the prosecutrix was, at the time charged in the bill, 19 years of age; that the defendant was a man 37 years of age; that the defendant paid court to the prosecutrix for more than 3 years; that he took her to numerous public places; that he gave her several presents and gifts; that he promised to marry her and that they became engaged; that she submitted to his embraces because of his promise of marriage and because she trusted him; that as a result of the seduction she became pregnant and gave birth to his child; that upon learning of her pregnancy he expressed his regret, stating that they would make the best of it and he would see her through; that she purchased her wedding clothes; that they agreed to be married August 28, 1939; that they went to get a blood test and at the time the defendant stated to the doctor that they were applying for a marriage license; that he told prosecutrix that he had been to Whiteville to obtain a marriage license but was unable to do so because he had no birth certificate and no proof of the age of the prosecutrix that prosecutrix obtained the birth certificate for him; that they made plans for the building of a home; that the defendant did not appear on the date set for the marriage and the prosecutrix did not thereafter see him until the preliminary hearing. There was also evidence tending to show that the prosecutrix was an innocent and virtuous woman and that at the time the warrant was issued the defendant could not be found in Bladen County.
The defendant offered no evidence.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. From judgment pronounced on the verdict defendant appealed.
L J. Britt and McLean & Stacy, all of Lumberton, for defendant, appellant.
Harry McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton and George B. Patton Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
The record contains 47 exceptions, of which 45 are directed to alleged error in the charge and two are formal. All of them are directed to the contention of the defendant that the charge as a whole constitutes an expression of opinion on the facts, contrary to C.S. § 564.
A careful examination of the charge discloses that the court undertook to and did "state in a plain and correct manner" the evidence in the case. It then stated the contentions of the State, based on the evidence, a recapitulation or synopsis of which it had given. This was followed by a statement of the contentions of the defendant. The court then correctly and clearly applied the law of the case to the evidence, properly placing the burden upon the State and requiring the jury not only to find, before returning a verdict of guilty, that they were satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt, but to also find that there was independent supporting evidence of every essential element of the crime as defined by the court. The judge went even further than the statute requires in charging "and the burden is upon the State to satisfy you beyond a reasonable doubt by independent facts and circumstances that each and every element of the offense has been established ***" This is a heavier burden upon the State than the law imposes.
The defendant complains, first, that the court, in detailing the evidence, expressed an opinion that certain facts were fully proven. This contention cannot be sustained. In reviewing the evidence the court clearly indicated that it was so doing by making reference to the witness and then detailing the substance of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial