State v. Trice

Decision Date28 February 1883
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesSTATE v. CUFF TRICE and others.
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

INDICTMENT for conspiracy tried at Fall Term, 1882, of WAKE Superior Court, before McKoy, J.

The defendants (with one Mack Cross, who was not on trial) are indicted in three counts: the first, for conspiring to commit rape upon the person of one Fidelia Upchurch; the second, for conspiring to commit the like offence upon one Effie Upchurch; and the third, for that they did unlawfully conspire and agree together to commit rape, and, in pursuance and according to said conspiracy, did prepare certain powders, which they did then and there unlawfully conspire and agree to administer to certain female persons to the jurors unknown, with intent then and there feloniously to ravish and carnally know the said female persons to the jurors so unknown, &c.”

On the trial, several witnesses testified to the general conversations with the defendant, Cuff Trice, in which he stated that he had a certain powder, or weed, by the use of which he could overcome any woman's scruples, and do with her as he pleased.

One John Dones testified that on one occasion he saw the defendant, Cuff, give some powders to the defendant, Charles Trice, and Mack Cross, telling them at the time that by using the powders they could overcome any woman; and that Cuff also offered to sell the witness some of the same powders, but his offer was declined. Some time thereafter, on a certain Saturday night, the witness met the defendant, Charles, and had some conversation with him as to where he was going, and, after some hesitation, he told the witness that he was going to “Upchurch's to overcome his girls”--that he was going to sprinkle some powders on their arms and joints, and in that way overcome them. Witness then watched him and saw him enter the house of Upchurch, where he remained for a short time, and then came out running, and Upchurch after him.

Upchurch testified that on the night alluded to by the last witness, some one entered the room where his two daughters were sleeping, and got under their bed, but in so doing alarmed them; thereupon they called the witness and he immediately went to their relief. As he entered the room, he saw some one run out, and he made pursuit, but was unable to overtake him.

The defendants called several witnesses to contradict and discredit the witness, Dones, and their evidence was submitted to the jury on that point.

Amongst other things, the court instructed the jury, that “if there was a corrupt combination between the defendants, or one of them with Mack Cross, to do any of the acts mentioned in the bill, to-wit, to rape Fidelia Upchurch, or Effie Upchurch, or a female person to the jurors unknown, or to have carnal intercourse with them by the use of any powders fraudulently used, and by such influence to overcome them, then, it would be the duty of the jury to find those guilty who entered into such corrupt combination, even though there was no evidence that their purpose had been attempted or accomplished.”

The defendants asked the court to instruct the jury that there was no evidence that the defendant, Cuff, knew that the powders sold by him were to be used upon Fidelia or Effie...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Spies v. People (In re Anarchists)
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • 14 d3 Setembro d3 1887
    ...of an associate in purpose, but not in action. 2 Starkie, Ev. pt. 1, Phil. (Ed. 1842,) *324; Kellyng, Cr. Cas. High Treas. *24; State v. Trice, 88 N. C. 627. Evidence of distinct substantive offenses is inadmissible. Whart. Crim. Ev. § 30; Shaffner v. Com., 72 Pa. St. 60; Kribs v. People, 8......
  • State v. Bissette
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 12 d5 Junho d5 1959
    ...unknown. State v. Tisdale, 145 N.C. 422, 58 S.E. 998; State v. Dowdy, 145 N.C. 432, 58 S.E. 1002; State v. Miller, 93 N.C. 511; State v. Trice, 88 N.C. 627; State v. Pickens, 79 N.C. 652; State v. Stamey, 71 N.C. 202; State v. Faucett, 20 N.C. 239; State v. Blythe, 18 N.C. King v. State, 16......
  • Foster v. State
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court
    • 11 d2 Maio d2 1886
    ...unknown to the grand jury, he must in some manner be individuated, identified, or singled out at the trial. Whart. Crim. Ev. § 97; State v. Trice, 88 N. C. 627. In this case the facts and circumstances established at the trial made a good prima facie case against Howard, as the person who s......
  • State v. Hayne
    • United States
    • North Carolina Supreme Court
    • 28 d3 Fevereiro d3 1883

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT