State v. Pippin
| Decision Date | 28 February 1883 |
| Citation | 88 N.C. 646 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. GEORGE H. PIPPIN. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
INDICTMENT for fornication and adultery tried at Fall Term, 1882, of MARTIN Superior Court, before Gilliam, J.
The defendants appealed.
Attorney-General, for the State .
Messrs. Pruden & Shaw, for defendants.
The defendants(George H. Pippin and Tabitha Hawkins) are charged with maintaining an illicit sexual intercourse during the two years preceding the finding of the bill of indictment, and, on the trial, to prove the offence, evidence was admitted of their being seen in bed together at a time antecedent to that protected by the statute of limitations.
The court charged the jury that it was competent for them to consider the relations between the parties as subsisting more than two years before the finding of the bill, and the other circumstances in evidence, including the fact that for the past two years and up to the trial they had lived alone in the same house.
To this instruction is directed the only exception relied on and pressed in this court...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Battles v. State
...91; State v. Snover, 64 N. J. Law, 65, 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......
-
Skidmore v. State
...605; People v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 449, 56 N. W. 11; People v. Cease, 80 Mich. 576, 45 N. W. 585; People v. Jenness, 5 Mich. 305; State v. Pippin, 88 N. C. 646; State v. Kemp, 87 N. C. 538; Com. v. Bell, 166 Pa. 405, 31 Atl. 123; State v. Reynolds, 48 S. C. 384, 26 S. E. 679; State v. De Master......
-
State v. McClain
...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, offenses, evidence of other acts than ......
-
State v. O'Donnell
...v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; Com. v. Nichols, 114 Mass. 285; People v. Skutt, 96 Mich. 449, 56 N.W. 11; State v. Marvin, 35 N.H. 22; State v. Pippin, 88 N.C. 646; Com. v. 166 Pa.St. 405, 31 A. 123. An examination of these deviations from the general rule will show that the testimony objected to......