State v. Sutton
| Decision Date | 13 April 1949 |
| Docket Number | 3 |
| Citation | 52 S.E.2d 921,230 N.C. 244 |
| Parties | STATE v. SUTTON. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecution under G.S. s 14-26, on bill of indictment charging carnal knowledge of a female child over twelve and under sixteen years of age.
The evidence for the State tends to show that on January 9, 1947 on her thirteenth birthday anniversary, Sallie Ramsey was picked up near her home by defendant and carried on his car to a deserted spot off the main highway and near an old corn mill; that there he had sexual intercourse with her on the back seat of his automobile; that this was the first time the girl had had intercourse with any person; and that thereafter illicit relations were maintained by the defendant and the prosecutrix over a period of several months, the defendant taking her to various places for that purpose.
The evidence for the State likewise tends to show that defendant engaged in illicit relations with Sallie Ramsey's younger sister and probably with her aunt, Edna Davis, the aunt conniving to get the parties together at various times. There was also evidence of other incriminating facts and circumstances.
The evidence for the defendant tended to show that he was not acquainted with the prosecuting witness or her sister or aunt; that while she her sister and aunt had been guilty of unseemly conduct, the man involved was named Ramsey; that defendant never associated with either one of the women. There was also evidence tending to show that it was impossible for defendant to have been at the places on the occasions and at the times testified to by the State's witnesses. Defendant likewise offered evidence of his good reputation.
The jury returned a verdict of guilty. The court pronounced judgment of imprisonment in the State's prison for a term of not less than twenty or more than thirty years. Defendant excepted and appealed.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
W. R Francis and John M. Queen, both of Waynesville, and Hugh E Monteith and David Hall, both of Sylva, for defendant-appellant.
The court below in its charge instructed the jury as follows:
Whether this instruction, as it appears in the record, conveys the thought the trial judge had in mind at the time or expresses with exactness just what he did say, we are unable to determine. In any event, we must take it as we find it.
How evidence tending to show that these three women were immoral, lascivious, dissolute characters could have any material bearing on 'the inclination, disposition, likelihood or lack of it, of the defendant' to indulge in similar unbridled conduct or to show intent, design, or guilty knowledge of the defendant, or to identify the person charged, we are unable to perceive. To have his inclination and disposition to indulge in immoral acts judged by their conduct saddled upon him a burden the law does not contemplate.
While we do not recognize a broadside exception to the charge but require an assignment of error of this kind to point out wherein the judge failed to comply with G.S. s 1-180, it is sometimes difficult to decide on which side a particular assignment falls. Here, however, we think the combination of exceptions and assignments brings the defendant under the wire and sufficiently presents his contention that the court below inadvertently failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of G.S. s 1-180.
He excepts in part for that the court failed to instruct the jury in respect to the particular issues arising on the evidence and apply the law thereto in such manner as to enable the jury to understand the essential elements of the crime charged. Then, in each instance where the court arrayed the facts in the form of a contention, he excepts 'for that the Court failed to instruct the jury as to the law arising on evidence of this character.'
The court, in charging the jury, read the statute, G.S. s...
To continue reading
Request your trial