State v. Porter

• Decision Date: 19 December 1924
• Docket Number: 86.
• Citation: 125 S.E. 615,188 N.C. 804
• Parties: STATE v. PORTER.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

125 S.E. 615

188 N.C. 804

STATE v. PORTER.

No. 86.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 19, 1924

Appeal from Superior Court, Harnett County; Midyette, Judge.

George Porter pleaded guilty to carnally knowing a female between 12 and 16, and from overruling of motion to withdraw plea and in arrest of judgment, he appeals. No error.

That prosecutrix was more than 14 years of age prior to amendment Pub.Laws 1923, c. 140, raising age of consent was not necessarily a defense, since prior intercourse did not make similar acts subsequent to amendment noncriminal.

Young Best & Young, of Dunn, for appellant.

James S. Manning, Atty. Gen., and Frank Nash, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The defendant was indicted for carnally knowing and abusing a female child over 12 and under 16 years of age in breach of C. S. § 4209, as amended by Public Laws, 1923, c. 140. When the case was called for trial the defendant, who was represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty, which was accepted on behalf of the prosecution. For the information of the court the state then examined the prosecutrix, whose testimony was corroborated and whose character was shown to be good. She testified that the defendant was her father's second cousin; that he first had intercourse with her in April, 1923, and afterwards on several occasions the last of which was immediately prior to the finding of the indictment, and that she was born on April 20, 1908. The bill was returned by the grand jury at the May term of 1924.

At the conclusion of the evidence the defendant moved for permission to withdraw his plea on the ground that he had been misinformed as to the age of the prosecutrix, and that his submission had been inadvisedly entered.

The amendment of 1923, supra, raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 years, went into effect July 1, 1923. The defendant contends that, if his plea were withdrawn, he could not be convicted on the state's evidence for two reasons: (1) Because the first act of intercourse occurred in April, 1923 and the prosecutrix was then over the age of 14; (2) because similar acts taking place after the amendment became effective would not constitute a breach of the statute, the prosecutrix having previously had intercourse with the defendant. Whatever may be said of the first proposition the second cannot be maintained. State v. Hopper, 186 N.C. 406, 119 S.E. 769; Hardin v. Davis, 183 N.C 46...