State v. Thompson
| Decision Date | 11 December 1946 |
| Docket Number | 651 |
| Citation | 40 S.E.2d 620,227 N.C. 19 |
| Parties | STATE v. THOMPSON et al. |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
Criminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendants with rape.
The evidence for the State tends to show that on the night of March 17, 1946, around the hour of midnight, the defendants severally had sexaul intercourse with the prosecuting witness, Mrs. Dorothy Lou Fry, who testified:
Three of the defendants, Granger Thompson, Stacy Powell and Calvin Covington, admitted having to do with the prosecutrix, but contended that it was commercialized vice, or prostitution and that the prosecutrix complained only upon their failure to pay the stipulated price. The defendant, Cliff Inman denied having anything to do with the prosecutrix, and pleaded an alibi.
The prosecutrix is a white woman, married and the mother of three children. She accompanied Frank Straughan, a white man, also married but not her husband, into the colored section of the Town of Lumberton on Sunday night in order that he might get a drink of whiskey. They were not strangers to that portion of the Town, The defendants are Negroes.
Straughan's car was stopped in the dark near Granger Thompson's house, and would not start again under its own battery. Straughan asked the defendants to push his car, which they did, even to pushing it into the ditch, but were unable to start it. The defendants 'went off and talked awhile' and then Inman suggested that he would go down the road and get a chain, if Straughan would go with him, so as to move the car by tying it to his own car. He would not go alone. While Straughan and Inman were gone to get the chain, the other defendants accompanied or forcibly took the prosecutrix to an unfinished house about a block away and there had intercourse with her, Thompson first, Powell second and Covington third. In the meantime, Inman had returned, helped Straughan start his car, went to the unfinished house, and the prosecutrix says: 'While Covington was having intercourse with me, Inman came to the door and Inman had sexual intercourse with me after Covington did '. Straughan drove back to town looking for the prosecutrix, and the prosecutrix says Inman carried her home in his Ford car. Inman testified that he took the chain back, after helping Straughan start his car, and then went to his home.
Three of the defendants, Thompson, Powell and Covington, were arrested that night and brought to Raleigh early Monday morning and lodged in the State's Prison for safe keeping. Covington made several statements to the officers in the nature of confessions before leaving Lumberton, and repeated them in the presence of Thompson and Powell in the jail at Lumberton and again a day or two later in the State's Prison at Raleigh.
Immediately upon his arrest by Officers Stanley Hardee and Cliff Britt, and again while going to police headquarters in Lumberton, Covington declared he wanted to tell the truth about the matter. Officer Hardee said to him, ' Covington told them that Thompson and Powell forcibly took the prosecutrix from the Straughan car and carried her to the unfinished house. That he went along. All had connection with her.
Later, in the presence of Thompson and Powell in the State's Prison at Raleigh, Covington repeated his inculpatory statements, and Thompson and Powell also confessed to ravishing the prosecutrix. In consequence of Thompson's statement, Cliff Inman was arrested and brought to Raleigh. The other defendants then repeated their statements in the presence of Inman, to which Inman replied: .
Upon the trial, the three defendants, Thompson, Powell and Covington, repudiated their confessions and sought to have them excluded on the ground that they were involuntary. The judge heard the evidence, pro and con, and admitted them as voluntary statements in the nature of confessions. The testimony of the defendants and that of the sheriff and the arresting officers was in sharp conflict as to the treatment accorded the defendants while they were under arrest and before any statements were made. The officers at the State's Prison testified that upon their arrival there the defendants showed no signs of ill treatment such as they contended they were subjected to, both in Lumberton and on their way to Raleigh.
Verdict: Guilty of the crime of rape as to each of the defendants.
Judgment: Death by asphyxiation as to all four of the defendants.
The defendants appeal, assigning errors.
Harry M. McMullan, Atty. Gen., and T. W. Bruton, Hughes J. Rhodes and Ralph M. Moody, Asst. Attys. Gen., for the State.
J. S. Bowser and L. P. Harris, both of Charlotte (Herman L. Taylor, of Durham, of counsel), for defendants, Thompson, Powell and Covington.
Johnson & Johnson, of Lumberton, for defendant, Inman.
We have here for determination (1) the sufficiency of the evidence to carry the cases to the jury, (2) the competency of evidence, particularly the confessions, and (3) the adequacy and correctness of the charge.
1. The Cases Against Thompson Powell and Covington:
Specifically, the question posed by the demurrers is whether the evidence permits the inference that sufficient 'force' was used to constitute rape. The prosecution says, 'Yes'; the defendants say, 'No'. Carnal knowledge of the prosecutrix by three of the defendants is admitted. If such knowledge were attained 'forcibly and against her will', it was rape; otherwise not. State v. Primus, 226 N.C. 671, 40 S.E.2d 113; State v. Johnson, 226 N.C. 266, 37 S.E.2d 678, and cases there cited. We the think the issue was one for the 12. True, the prosecutrix unwittingly says she did not 'object to the intercourse' which the defendants had with her, but this was predicated upon the reason stated that she feared for her life, and 'it was against my wishes and against my will'. She further says: 'I did not consent; I used as much much force as I could to keep them from having sexual intercourse with me'. It It is conceded that the 'force' necessary to constitute rape need not be actual physical force. 52 C.J. 1024. Fear, fright, or coercion, may take the place of force. 44 Am.Jur. 903.
In considering the demurrers to the evidence, we are not concerned with the weight of the testimony, or with its truth or falsity, but only with its sufficiency to carry the cases to the jury and to sustain the indictment. State v. Vincent, 222 N.C. 543, 23 S.E.2d 832; State v. Smith, 221 N.C. 400, 20 S.E.2d 360; State v. Rountree, 181 N.C. 535, 106 S.E. 669. And in passing upon this question it is not to be overlooked that the State is entitled to the benefit of every face and inference of fact pertaining to the matters involved which may reasonably be deduced from the evidence. State v. Stephenson, 218 N.C. 258, 10 S.E.2d 819; State v. Carr, 196 N.C. 129, 144 S.E. 698. 'The practice is now so firmly established as to admit of no questioning that, on a motion to nonsuit, the evidence is to be considered in its most favorable light for the prosecution '. State v. Beal, 199 N.C. 278, 154 S.E. 604, 613. Viewed in this wise, we conclude that the demurrers were properly overruled. Even equivocation on the part of the prosecutrix, if such there were, which is unconceded, would not take the case from the jury. Ward v. Smith, 223 N.C. 141, 25 S.E.2d 463; Industrial Bank v. Resolute Fire Ins. Co., 223 N.C. 390, 26 S.E.2d 862; Shell v. Roseman, 155 N.C. 90, 71 S.E. 86.
The three defendants who made statements to the officers in the nature of confessions stressfully contend that these confessions were erroneously admitted in evidence, because they say, the statements were (1) extracted by fear, or (2) induced by hope. The first reason assigned is untenable in the light of the record; the second may require some analysis.
1. The allegation that the confessions were provoked by assaults, beatings and ill treatment on the part of the officers, while the defendants were in their custody, was fully investigated by the trial court, as was his duty under the law. State v. Brooks, 225 N.C. 662, 36 S.E.2d 238. The testimony of the defendants in this respect was categorically denied by the officers who had them in charge. Likewise, the officers at the State's Prison testified that upon their arrival there, the defendants showed no signs of having been assaulted or mistreated. On this conflict of evidence, the trial court found that the allegation of extortion of the confessions by threats and violence was without foundation in fact. The conclusion is definitive under our practice. State v. Lord, 225 N.C. 354, 34 S.E.2d 205; State v. Biggs, 224 N.C. 23, 29 S.E.2d 121, and cases there cited.
2. The allegation that the confessions were induced by the flattery of hope presents a different question. Annotation 7 A.L.R. 423. There is no conflict in the evidence on this point. The officers themselves testify that they told Covington, 'it would be better to go on and tell us the truth than try to lie about it. * * *; it would be better to come on and tell the truth '. These admonitions, however, were given after Covington had expressed a desire to tell the truth about the matter, and apparently in response to such declaration or expression.
It will be noted the suggestion made by the officers...
To continue reading
Request your trial