State v. Mehaffey

• Decision Date: 12 May 1903
• Citation: 44 S.E. 107,132 N.C. 1062
• Parties: STATE v. MEHAFFEY.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

44 S.E. 107

132 N.C. 1062

STATE v. MEHAFFEY.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

May 12, 1903

Appeal from Superior Court, Catawba County; Long, Judge.

J. T Mehaffey was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Douglas J., dissenting.

If at any time during any assault by a man on a female he has an intent to ravish her, he is guilty of an assault with intent to rape, irrespective of what causes him to abandon his purpose.

L. L Witherspoon and W. B. Gaither, for appellant.

W Feimster and the Attorney General, for the State.

CLARK C.J.

Indictment for assault with intent to commit rape. There are five exceptions, three of which are to the refusal to charge as prayed, and the other two are to the charge. The court gave the following instructions at the request of the defendant: "(1) That, in order to convict for an assault with intent to commit rape, the jury must be satisfied, not only that the prisoner intended to gratify his passions on the prosecutrix, but that he intended to do so at all events, and notwithstanding any resistance on her part. (2) It is not proof of guilt merely that the facts are consistent with guilt. They must be inconsistent with innocence. It is neither charity nor common sense nor law to infer the worst intent which the facts will admit of. The reverse is the rule of justice and law. If the facts will reasonably admit the inference of an attempt, which, though immoral, is not criminal, we are bound to infer that intent. (3) A conviction of an assault with intent to commit rape by force is not warranted by proof that the defendant, against the will of the female upon whom the crime is charged to have been committed, indecently fondled her with intent to induce her thereby to submit to his embrace. It must appear that his intent was to accomplish his purpose by force, and against her will, and at all events, notwithstanding any resistance on her part." The defendant further requested the following instruction: "(4) The crime which is charged in the bill that the defendant intended to commit is a most detestable crime. The heinousness of the offense may transport the jury, and even the judge, with so much indignation that they may be overhastily carried on to a conviction on insufficient evidence. Blk. Com. 215." The defendant excepts to the court not using this exact phraseology, but the above was not laid down by Mr. Justice Blackstone as substantive law, nor as a consecrated formula for instructions to the jury. All that the defendant was entitled to was proper caution, which appears fully throughout the charge and in the above prayers that were given; and besides, his honor in conclusion cautioned the jury: "It is your duty, gentlemen of the jury, to review this evidence without bias or prejudice, calmly and deliberately, and endeavor to ascertain the truth. If there has been anything said by counsel in the heat of debate and in the ardor of argument calculated to prejudice the cause of the state or the cause of the defendant, it is your duty to dismiss that part of the argument, and consider only such argument as assists you to determine what the facts are in this case, and the law as given to you by the court;" and much more to same effect. The judge is not required to give an instruction in the very words asked. State v. Hicks, 130 N.C. 705, 41 S.E. 803, and cases there cited.

The fifth prayer for instruction was: "Considering the evidence asked by the state in this case, it is not sufficient to authorize the jury in rendering a verdict of guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape as charged in the bill of indictment." This was properly refused. The intent is necessarily an inference to be drawn from the defendant's acts, and it must be drawn by the jury, and not by the judge, when there is any evidence. The prosecutrix, a young girl barely 14 years of age, was an employé of the defendant, a mature man of 54, who employed attention, gifts of money, and association with her, which the evidence tended to show was with a design to have carnal intercourse with her. The evidence also tended to show that failing to seduce her by these means, he sought a retired place and opportunity to gratify his passions at all events, where her outcries were heard only by her younger sister, who had been working with her in the field; that she was a girl of good character, and made no assignation with him; that he sent her to the cotton house to empty some baskets; that he went in behind her, closed the door, and when she started out he jerked her down, put his hand on her private parts, also caught her in his arms, and felt her breasts. He then put his hands where his pants unbuttoned. She screaming, and crying and trying to get loose. Her little sister, who was the only person near by, testifies that she heard the outcries. The prosecutrix says she was screaming as loud as she could, crying and trying to get away; that the defendant got his finger inserted in her person twice; that finally for a few minutes, the defendant desisted, and she does not know why, unless...