State v. Rogers

• Decision Date: 11 December 1946
• Docket Number: 509
• Citation: 40 S.E.2d 472,227 N.C. 67
• Parties: STATE v. ROGERS.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

40 S.E.2d 472

227 N.C. 67

STATE v. ROGERS.

No. 509

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 11, 1946

The defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging that James Fred Rogers did, unlawfully, willfully and feloniously commit an assault upon Geneva Malcolm, a female, with the intent to rape, ravish, and carnally know Geneva Malcolm forcibly and against her will. When the State had introduced its evidence and rested its case, the defendant lodged a motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit and dismissal of the action, which motion was overruled, to which ruling of the Court the defendant preserved exception whereupon the defendant indicated that he would introduce no evidence and renewed his motion for judgment as in case of nonsuit and dismissal of the action, which motion was again overruled and defendant preserved exception. The trial of the action then proceeded upon evidence introduced by the State and the jury returned a verdict of 'guilty as set forth in the bill of indictment. ' The Court entered judgment that defendant be confined in the State's Prison for a period of ten (10) years, which judgment was subsequently stricken out and a judgment that the defendant be confined in the State's Prison for a period of seven (7) years entered in lieu thereof. From this judgment the defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning errors.

J. M. Scarborough of Charlotte, for defendant appellant.

Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes, and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.

SCHENCK Justice.

Only two assignments of error appear in the record, namely: (1) refusal of the Court to grant motion of defendant for judgment as in case of nonsuit at the close of the State's evidence, and (2) refusal of the Court to grant motion of defendant for judgment as in case of nonsuit at the close of all the evidence. Both of the assignments of error are set out in appellant's brief, and since the same and only question is posed by both exceptions, namely, was there sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury, such assignments of error are discussed together. We are of the opinion, and so hold, that the answer to the question posed is in the affirmative.

It should be remembered that the question for our decision is: Was there sufficient evidence to carry the case to the jury and to sustain the indictment.

The testimony of the prosecuting witness, Geneva Malcolm, was in substance that...