State v. Stiles
| Decision Date | 05 November 1947 |
| Docket Number | 3 |
| Citation | 44 S.E.2d 728,228 N.C. 137 |
| Parties | STATE v. STILES. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecution upon an indictment charging that defendant 'did unlawfully and willfully fail neglect, and refuse to support and adequately maintain his illegitimate child heretofore begotten upon the body of' a certain named woman, etc.
The evidence offered by the State in the trial court, in the light most favorable to the State, tends to show: That defendant is the father of the son of prosecutrix born 14 July, 1942; that when prosecutrix became pregnant she told her father and mother that defendant was the father of her child; that she requested her father 'to get in touch with' defendant 'and make some arangements for him to help' her 'and the child'; that her father went over and told Mr. Payne, with whom defendant 'was staying' 'what he was into and it would make it a little lighter on him if he would come and do something about it and keep it out of court', and asked Mr. Payne 'to see defendant about it', and Mr. Payne did see defendant and told him about it; that defendant said the child was not his, and he would not pay anything; that defendant was not requested to pay any definite amount; that prosecutrix has never talked with defendant since the baby was born, except one time. She says: 'He was going up the road and I hollered and asked if he was going to support the child and I asked him what he was going to do and he did not even look toward the house when I tried to talk to him; he just walked away up the road, he and his father, and that is the only time I ever spoke to him'; that father of prosecuting witness took out a warrant for defendant a day or two after she told him; that when defendant knew he was going to be arrested, he left and went to Asheville; that defendant 'has never done anything for the child, and has not paid any part of' prosecutrix' 'hospital or doctor bill'; that defendant 'has never contributed anything to the support of the child'.
The State offered the child in evidence as an Exhibit.
Defendant reserving exception to the denial of his motion for judgment as of nonsuit at close of State's evidence, offered himself as a witness, and testified in substance: That he had never had any sexual relations with the prosecutrix; that she had never said anything to him about his being the father of her baby; that if she ever hollered to him as he was passing the house in the road and said she wanted him to do something for the baby, he 'never heard it'; that Mr. Payne told him that prosecutrix was pregnant and was going to swear the child to him and he 'could settle it now', or words to that effect; that he told Mr. Payne that 'it was a damned lie and a black one', that he had 'never had any sexual intercourse with this girl' and 'wouldn't give him a damned penny'; that this was the only time anybody ever said anything to him about the prosecutrix saying that he was the father of her child; that 'Mr. Payne didn't mention any amount',--just said he could settle it; that he has not paid anything for the child's support; that he knew prosecutrix 'was laying the baby' on him from the time Mr. Payne told him; and that he has been called out in court, and had been arrested on capias, and had 'made two or three bonds in this case'.
Defendant renewed motion for judgment as of nonsuit at close of all the evidence. Denied. Exception.
Verdict Guilty.
Judgment: Imprisonment, and assigned to do labor under the supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission,--sentence not to go into effect except upon motion of the Solicitor within given time 'upon satisfactory proof that defendant has failed to pay into the office of the Clerk of the Superior Court' certain sums of money at certain times for certain enumerated purposes, including reimbursement for hospital and medical bills at the time of the birth of the child.
Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court and assigns error.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
F. O. Christopher, of Murphy, and Edwards & Leatherwood, of Bryson City, for defendant appellant.
The questions of law involved on this appeal, as stated in brief for defendant, are (1) whether there is sufficient evidence to be submitted to the jury, and (2) whether there is error in the court's charge to the jury.
As to the first question, we are of opinion and hold that the evidence is sufficient to take the case to the jury on the charge with which defendant stands indicted. The indictment is under the statute referred to as 'An act...
To continue reading
Request your trial