State v. Shaft
| Decision Date | 20 May 1914 |
| Docket Number | (No. 585.) |
| Citation | 166 N.C. 407,81 S.E. 932 |
| Parties | STATE. v. SHAFT. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Where, on a trial for procuring a pregnant woman to take a drug with intent to procure a miscarriage, the pregnancy of the woman was undisputed, evidence as to sexual intercourse on her part was immaterial and its admission was harmless.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 754, 3088, 3130, 3137-3143; Dec. Dig. § 1169.*]
On a trial for procuring a pregnant woman to take a drug with intent to procure a miscarriage, where there was evidence that a capsule, some of which was administered, contained aloes, experts were properly permitted to testify as to the effect of such drug on pregnancy, when administered in large doses.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. § 1062; Dec. Dig. § 476.*]
On a criminal trial, the testimony of an accomplice is competent.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1099-1123; Dec. Dig. § 508.*]
A person may be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, though the jury should be cautious, in so convicting.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1124-1126; Dec. Dig. § 510.*]
A pregnant woman, procured by defendant to take a drug with intent to procure a miscarriage, was not an accomplice in a legal sense.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 1082-1096; Dec. Dig. § 507.*]
Under Revisal 1905, § 3619, specifying the punishment for procuring a pregnant woman to take a drug with intent to procure a miscarriage, where a drug is furnished for the purpose of producing a miscarriage, it is immaterial that it is not noxious or capable of producing the intended effect.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Abortion, Cent. Dig. §§ 1-5; Dec. Dig. § 1.*]
Under Revisal 1905, § 3618, providing that any person who shall administer _ or procure any woman pregnant or quick with child to take any drug with intent to destroy the child shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than ten years, and fined at the court's discretion, and section 3019 providing that any person who shall administer or procure any pregnant woman to take any drug with intent to procure a miscarriage, or injure the woman, shall be imprisoned not less than one nor more than five years, and fined at the court's discretion, imprisonment for three years and a fine of $1,000 for procuring a pregnant woman to take a
drug with intent to procure a miscarriage was not a cruel and unusual punishment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 3304-3309; Dec. Dig. § 1213.*]
Appeal from Superior Court, Buncombe County; Carter, Judge.
Elizabeth Shaft was convicted of an offense, and she appeals. Affirmed.
This is an indictment for a violation of sections 3618 and 3619, Revisal. The bill of indictment charged that the defendant "did unlawfully and willfully and feloniously advise and procure a certain woman, called Annie Kraft, to take a certain noxious drug, the name of which is to the grand jurors unknown, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of her (the said Annie Kraft); she being at the time pregnant." From the judgment sentencing the defendant to imprisonment in the state prison for three years, and to pay a fine of $1,000, she appealed.
R. S. McCall and Mark W. Brown, both of Asheville, for appellant.
Attorney General Bickett and Assistant Attorney General Calvert, for the State.
BROWN, J. [1] The first and second assignments of error relate to the admission of testimony tending to prove sexual intercourse upon the part of the girl, Annie Kraft. This testimony was wholly immaterial, and certainly harmless as to the defendant. There was no dispute as to the pregnancy of the girl, and the only question to be determined was whether or not the defendant had administered to her medicine for the purpose of procuring an abortion.
Exceptions 3, 4, 5, and 6 relate to the competency of certain witnesses to testify as experts, and to their qualifications as such. A previous witness had testified that the capsule offered in evidence, and some of which had been administered to the girl, contained aloes, and these witnesses, as experts, were permitted to testify as to the effect of this drug upon pregnancy, when administered in large doses. We see no objection to the competency of this evidence.
Exceptions 7, 9, and 11 were taken to the sufficiency of the evidence to go to the jury, and seem to rest upon two grounds:
First. It seems to be contended by the defendant that a conviction cannot be had in such cases on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman, as she is said to be an accomplice in the alleged offense. Assuming that the girl, Kraft, was an accomplice, the testimony of an accomplice is competent in this state, and a person may be convicted upon the unsupported testimony of an accomplice, though the jury should be cautious in so...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cragun
...has been committed, even with her consent, is not an accomplice in the legal sense, whatever may be her moral turpitude. State v. Shaft, 166 N.C. 407, 81 S.E. 932, Ann. Cas. 1916C, 627; Gullatt v. State, Ga.App. 53, 80 S.E. 340; State v. Stafford, 145 Iowa 285, 123 N.W. 167; Meno v. State, ......
-
State v. Tilley
...v. Palmer, 178 N.C. 822, 101 S.E. 506; State v. Jones, 176 N.C. 702, 97 S.E. 32; State v. Smith, 170 N.C. 742, 87 S.E. 98; State v. Shaft, 166 N.C. 407, 81 S.E. 932, Ann.Cas.1916C, 627; State v. Neville, 157 N.C. 591, 72 S.E. 798; State v. Register, 133 N.C. 746, 46 S.E. 21; State v. Barber......
-
State v. Kelly
... ... this ordinary caution a precision which makes it approach a ... rule of law." If the unsupported testimony of the ... accomplice produce undoubting belief of the prisoner's ... guilt, the jury should convict.' State v ... Register, 133 N.C. 746, 46 S.E. 21; State v ... Shaft, 166 N.C. 407, 81 S.E. 932, Ann.Cas.1916C, 627 ... The court below charged the law fully and cautioned the jury, ... 'you may convict on the unsupported testimony of an ... accomplice,' but 'that it is dangerous and unsafe to ... do so.' The charge was all, and perhaps more than, the ... ...
-
State v. Ashburn
...produce undoubting belief of the prisoner's guilt, the jury should convict." State v. Register, 133 N.C. 746, 46 S.E. 21; State v. Shaft, 166 N.C. 407, 81 S.E. 932, Ann. Cas. 1916C, The court below charged the law fully and cautioned the jury, "you may convict on the unsupported testimony o......