State v. Robertson
| Decision Date | 26 October 1897 |
| Citation | 28 S.E. 59,121 N.C. 551 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE v. ROBERTSON. |
Seduction — Evidence —Impeachment of Witness—Trial—Remarks of Court.
1. In a prosecution for seduction it is competent for the state to show other acts of sexual intercourse between defendant and prosecutrix since the date of the act alleged.
2. In a prosecution for seduction, where H., a witness for the defense, had testified that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix prior to the alleged date of her first intercourse with de fendant, and one W., a state's witness, had testified to a conversation with H., in which the latter, in reply to a question, denied that he had had illicit intercourse with the prosecutrix, stating that she was a lady, it was competent for the state to show by a witness, who was near by when the alleged conversation occurred, that, on hearing the name of prosecutrix mentioned, he went up to the parties, and heard H. say, "It is not so; I always found her to be a lady.
3. When the prosecutrix in a trial for seduction weepingly denied that she had sexual intercourse with any one but defendant, certain persons present, who had previously created considerable disorder, burst into loud laughter, whereupon the judge called for order, saying "If I could discover the infernal fiends who laugh in such a manner, I would send them to jail for eon-tempt." Held not a violation of Code, § 413, prohibiting the judge from expressing an opinion on the facts.
Appeal from superior court, Wake county; Robinson, Judge.
Thomas Robertson was convicted of seduction under promise to marry, and appeals. Affirmed.
Battle & Mordecai and Argo & Snow, for appellant
The Attorney General and Jones & Boykin, for the State.
This is an Indictment for seduction under promise to marry, under the act of 1885 (chapter 248). There are three exceptions presented by the record, —two as to evidence, and one as to remarks made by the judge during the progress of the trial, in which it is alleged the judge expressed an opinion as to the facts in the case prejudicial to the defendant.
The state asked Julia Hester, the prosecutrix, if, subsequent to September, 1891, [1893], there were other illicit acts committed by them of a carnal character. This was objected to by defendant, but allowed by the court, and the witness answered in the affirmative that there had been other acts since the first. This ruling of the court is sustained by Whart. Cr. Ev. § 35; Sherwood v. Titman, 55 Pa. St 77; and by a note in Weaver v. Bachert, 44 Am. Dec. 172, where Sherwood v. Titman is quoted with approval.
As the third exception is also as to evidence, we will consider it next. Thomas Hester testified that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix before September, 1893, the alleged date of the first intercourse with the defendant J. W. Upchurch testified in behalf of the state that he had a conversation with the witness Thomas Hester at his mill a few days before the trial in the civil action, in which he asked Thomas if it was true that he had sexual intercourse with Julia Hester, the prosecuting witness, when Thomas replied that it was not true; that he knew nothing of her, but that she was a lady. There was evidence that Ray Parrish, Upchurch's miller, heard this conversation. Parrish was introduced by the state, and testified: To this evidence the defendant objected, and, upon it being allowed, excepted upon the ground that it was fragmentary. We do not think so. It contained the whole matter in dispute, and, if true, proved that Thomas Hester had testified falsely, and nothing that Thomas could have said could have explained it to mean anything but that she was a virtuous woman, so far as he knew. There was no error in allowing this evidence. Davis v. Smith, 75 N. C. 115.
The second exception was urged with great earnestness, and seems to have been principally relied upon by the defendant. It is an alleged violation of section 413 of the Code. During the progress of the trial, which seems to have lasted for more than a day, there had been considerable disorder on the part of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Battles v. State
...in 168 Ill. 395, 48 N. E. 54; State v. Witham, 72 Me. 531; State v. Williams, 76 Me. 480; State v. Way, 5 Neb. 283; State v. Robertson, 121 N. C. 551, 28 S. E. 59. The following observations upon the general subject occurring in Thayer v. Thayer, 101 Mass. 111, 100 Am. Dec. 110, are deemed ......
-
State v. Hart
...or sufficiently proven, on the trial of the other defendant." See cases cited. See, also, State v. Laxton, 78 N.C. 564; State v. Robertson, 121 N.C. 551, 28 S.E. 59; State v. Dewey, 139 N.C. 560, 51 S.E. McDonald v. McArthur, 154 N.C. 10, 69 S.E. 684; State v. Rogers, 168 N.C. 116, 83 S.E. ......
-
McNinch v. American Trust Co.
...propounded. At least, such appears to be the more reasonable interpretation of the judge's inquiry and comment. In State v. Robertson, 121 N.C. 551, 28 S.E. 59, it said: "It devolves upon the party complaining to show that the court has in some way expressed an opinion on the facts and that......
-
State v. Palmberg
...3105; State v. King, 117 Iowa 768; People v. Edwards, 73 P. 416; State v. Borchert, 68 Kan. 360; Smith v. Com., 22 Ky. L. 1349; State v. Robertson, 121 N.C. 551; v. State, 36 Tex. Crim. 372; Woodruff v. State, 101 N.W. 1117. (2) The court committed no error in allowing the jury to see the c......