State v. Jordon, 722.

Decision Date05 June 1947
Docket NumberNo. 722.,722.
Citation227 N.C. 579,42 S.E.2d 674
PartiesSTATE. v. JORDON.
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court

Appeal from Superior Court, Forsyth County; J. A. Rousseau, Judge.

Mayford Jordon was convicted under indictment charging defendant with unlawfully, willfully and feloniously prescribing for a pregnant woman certain medicines, drugs and instruments with intent thereby to destroy the child and he appeals.

Reversed.

Criminal prosecution under bill of indictment which charges that defendant did "unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously prescribe for one Mildred Bennett, she being pregnant, to the knowledge of the said Mayford Jordon, certain medicines, drugs or instrument, with intent thereby to destroy said child, * * *."

There were intimate relations between defendant and the prosecutrix on the first and third Sundays in July 1946. Sometime shortly after 15 August she discovered she was pregnant and so informed the defendant. Thereupon he procured twelve 5-grain capsules of quinine, gave them to her, and told her to take them "and it would destroy the baby." Later he gave her twelve more capsules. She took fourand threw the others away. The medicine did not have the desired effect.

During the progress of the trial the defendant inquired whether the State was proceeding under G.S. §§ 14-44 or 14-45. The court replied it was proceeding under G.S. § 14-44. There was a verdict of guilty.

The court pronounced judgment and defendant appealed.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen, and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen, for the State.

Roy L. Deal and Fred S. Hutchins, both of Winston-Salem, for defendant-appellant.

BARNHILL, Justice.

By the enactment of Chap. 351, P.L. 1881, the Legislature created two separate criminal offenses. The first, Sec. 1, now G.S. § 14-44, is designed to protect the life of a child in ventre sa mere and makes it unlawful to prescribe or administer drugs or to perform an operation upon a "woman, either pregnant or quick with child, " with intent thereby to destroy said child. The second, Sec. 2, now G.S. § 14-45, condemns the administration of drugs to or performance of an operation upon a "pregnant woman * * * with intent thereby to procure a miscarriage of such woman, or to injure or destroy such woman, " and is primarily for the protection of the woman.

Here the bill of indictment contains no allegation that the drug was prescribed with intent to procure a miscarriage or to injure or destroy the prosecutrix. Hence the court below correctly ruled that the prosecution is under G.S. § 14-44.

So then the one question posed for decision is this: Is the evidence offered sufficient to sustain a conviction under G.S. § 14-44? The answer depends upon the meaning of the term "either pregnant or quick with child" used in the statute and in the bill of indictment. Broadly speaking, a woman is "pregnant" from the moment of conception until the time the impregnated ovum, embryo, fetus, or child is discharged from the uterus. This, the attorney general contends, is the meaning of the word as used in the statute. On the other hand, the defendant insists that "pregnant or quick" is used as one term or expression to qualify, limit, or define "with child" and thus confines the period of pregnancy to which the statute relates to the latter half of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • State v. Surles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1949
    ...that in a doubtful case penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the state and in favor of the citizen. State v. Jordon, 227 N.C. 579, 42 S.E. 2d 674; In re Parker, 225 N.C. 369, 35 S.E.2d 169; State v. Campbell, 223 N.C. 828, 28 S.E.2d 499; State v. Ingle, 214 N.C. 276, 199 S.E.......
  • State v. Hageman, 206A82
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • November 3, 1982
    ...the State. State v. Ross, 272 N.C. 67, 157 S.E.2d 712 (1967); State v. Brown, 264 N.C. 191, 141 S.E.2d 311 (1965); State v. Jordon, 227 N.C. 579, 42 S.E.2d 674 (1947). This Court held in State v. Surles, supra, that an attempted burglary was infamous because it was an act of depravity, invo......
  • State v. Surles
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • April 20, 1949
    ... ... State v. Claywell, 98 N.C. 731, 3 S.E. 920; ... State v. Frisbee, 142 N.C. 671, 55 S.E. 722, 724 ... This Court declared in the case last cited that 'When * * ... * the Legislature used the words 'other malicious ... misdemeanors' which ... case penal statutes are to be construed strictly against the ... state and in favor of the citizen. State v. Jordon, ... 227 N.C. 579, 42 S.E.2d 674; In re Parker, 225 N.C ... 369, 35 S.E.2d 169; State v. Campbell, 223 N.C. 828, ... 28 S.E.2d 499; State ... ...
  • State v. Beale
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 9, 1989
    ...years in prison "unless the same be performed to preserve the life of the mother." 1881 N.C. Sess. Laws ch. 351, § 1; State v. Jordon, 227 N.C. 579, 42 S.E.2d 674 (1947). See State v. Hoover, 252 N.C. 133, 113 S.E.2d 281 (1960); State v. Green, 230 N.C. 381, 53 S.E.2d 285 (1949). This statu......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT