State v. Ring

• Decision Date: 16 October 1906
• Citation: 142 N.C. 596,55 S.E. 194
• Parties: STATE . v. RING.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

55 S.E. 194

142 N.C. 596

STATE .

v.RING.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Oct. 16, 1906.

1. Seduction—Evidence—Sufficiency.

In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, the prosecution need not show that defendant expressly promised the prosecutrix to marry her, if she would submit to his embraces, but it is sufficient if the jury from the evidence can fairly infer that the seduction was accomplished by reason of the promise, giving to defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt.

[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 43, Cent. Dig. Seduction, § 82.]

2. Same.

In a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, where the promise of marriage existed before the seduction, the evidence considered and held to show that prosecutrix trusted to defendant's pledge to never forsake her, and to his promise of marriage when she yielded to his embraces, and to sustain a conviction.

Appeal from Superior Court, Columbus County; Justice, Judge.

One Ring was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was Indicted for seduction under promise of marriage. The prosecutrix testified that she first knew the defendant in 1901 when he made love to her, and they became sweethearts; that she went with him two years. He courted her, and she promised to marry him. She did not go with any one else. He made a request of her a year before she yielded, which was In August, 1904, and she became pregnant in November of that year. He said it was his right to do as he wanted to with her under the circumstances, and, to prove her love, she yielded to him. The defendant left the state in April, 1905. The child was born the following August. He said he loved her, and would not believe she loved him unlessshe yielded to his wishes. She yielded to his wishes, and she still loved him, and believed everything he said. He said further that he would never forsake her, but would stick to her forever. They had been engaged over a year when she yielded to his approaches the first time, but before that he had promised her that he would never forsake her, that he intended to marry her anyhow, and that it was his right to have his way with her, and that he would not believe that she loved him unless she yielded, and she did so to prove her love for him. There was also evidence tending to support the testimony of the prosecutrix. Letters from the defendant to her were read as evidence. In these he admitted having promised to marry her, and that he had sexual intercourse with her. He requested her not to tell any more than she had to tell and not to have a lawsuit as it would make things worse. In one of the letters, he states that he is deeply sensible of the great wrong he had done. He inquires if either of them was to blame, as one could not help it more than the other, and wants to know if a satisfactory settlement cannot be made. Several times he warns her against being deceived and insists that she should say as little about it as possible. He further says that while it is an unfortunate affair, it is no worse that others have done; that he had been caught, and that is all, but that the affair had not caused him to leave home, but other circumstances forced him to leave. In one letter, is this expression: "You have trusted in my honor in the past. I now trust in yours to do all that you can to prevent so much publicity by having a lawsuit which will not bring to light anything that will be to our credit or in our favor. I cannot see what good it will do you, or any one else, if you convict me." He then threatens that, if the matter is prosecuted, he will disclose something that will not be to her credit or to that of her people, and adds: "I know that you are not the one who is prosecuting (implying that her brother is) but it depends on what you say. I am not uneasy about being convicted, but it is on your account that I want this settled without going to court. I want to see you, first chance." In still another letter, he says: "You have sacrificed your virtue for the gratification of the passion of a man who is worthy of a letter from you. Will you be kind enough to write something, and tell me what you expect of me, and what you hope to accomplish by going to law?" There was evidence to the effect that the prosecutrix had been a chaste, virtuous, and innocent woman before the time of the alleged seduction. The defendant's counsel requested the court to charge the jury, "that under all the evidence in the case, the defendant is not guilty." The court refused so to charge, and the defendant excepted. The jury convicted the defendant, and from the judgment upon the verdict, he appealed.

D. J. Lewis and J. B. Schulken, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Walter Clark, Jr., for the State.

WALKER, J. (after stating the case). The defendant's counsel, in their brief, contend that there was no evidence in the case that the prosecutrix was seduced under a promise of marriage. The gravamen of this offense is seduction induced by the promise which the defendant has failed to keep. There are other essential elements, but this is the principal one, and If there was no evidence of It, the defendant should have been acquitted. We think that there was not only some, but abundant evidence, to warrant the verdict of the jury. It is not necessary to a conviction under this law that...