State v. Rippy
| Decision Date | 30 October 1900 |
| Citation | 127 N.C. 516,37 S.E. 148 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE. v. RIPPY. |
RAPE—PUNISHMENT.
Defendant was convicted of rape, under Laws 1895, c. 295, which makes the offense punishable by fine, or imprisonment in the penitentiary, at the discretion of the court. Held, that Code, § 1096. providing that persons convicted of felonies for which no specific punishment is prescribed shall be imprisoned in the county jail or penitentiary not exceeding two years, and be fined, in the discretion of the court, applies only where the statute creating (he offense fails to specify the nature of the punishment, and hence it was not error to sentence defendant to the state prison for 10 years; there being nothing to show that the discretion given the court was abused.
Appeal from superior court, Durham county; Hoke, Judge.
Ollie Rippy was convicted of rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
Boone, Bryant & Biggs, for appellant.
The Attorney General, for the State.
The prisoner, indicted for rape, entered a plea of guilty upon the third count, for "unlawfully and carnally know-ing and abusing" an innocent female between the ages of 10 and 14 years. The solicitor, with the sanction of the court, accepted the plea, and the jury returned a verdict, accordingly. This offense was created by chapter 295, Laws 1895, which provides that it "shall be punished by fine or imprisonment in the state's prison, at the discretion of the court." The sentence is, "Ten years in the state's prison, " which is clearly within the terms of the punishment authorized. There is nothing to show that this discretion reposed by the statute in the judge was abused. The only exception in the transcript is that Code, § 1096, provides that persons convicted of felonies for which "no specific punishment is prescribed by statute" shall be imprisoned in the county jail or penitentiary not exceeding two years, and be fined, in the discretion of the court. But the penalty prescribed by chapter 295, Laws 1895, is specific, —fully as much so as that laid down in Code, § 1096, and is different in kind. The former authorizes fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary at the discretion of the court. The latter, a fine in the discretion of the court, and imprisonment in jail or the penitentiary, not exceeding two years, etc. These sections (1096 and 1097) apply only where an act is prohibited or is made unlawful, without specifying the nature of punishment, — as, for instance, Code, § 2799, construed in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Surles
...punishment cannot be the test of its meaning, for the statute applies only where no specific punishment is prescribed. State v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148; United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433, 42 S.Ct. 368, 67 L.Ed. 700, 24 A.L.R. 992. The purpose of the section is to fix the puni......
-
State v. Surles
...punishment cannot be the test of its meaning, for the statute applies only where no specific punishment is prescribed. State v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148; United States v. Moreland, 258 U.S. 433, 42 368, 67 L.Ed. 700, 24 A.L.R. 992. The purpose of the section is to fix the punishment......
-
State v. Blackmon, 146
...that the court below was without power to sentence the defendant to a term of imprisonment in excess of thirty days. In State v. Rippy (1900), 127 N.C. 516, 37 S.E. 148, the defendant was indicted for rape and entered a plea of guilty upon the third count in the bill of indictment for 'unla......
-
State v. Mounce
...569, 15 S.E.2d 9; State v. Brackett, 218 N.C. 369, 11 S.E.2d 146; State v. Harris, 204 N.C. 422, 423, 424, 168 S.E. 498; State v. Rippy, 127 N.C. 516, 517, 37 S.E. 148; State v. Brite, supra. The exception is not meritorious, and the judgment of the trial court is ...