Home/Supreme Court of North Carolina/State v. . Edwards

State v. . Edwards

31 S.E.2d 516, 224 N.C. 527, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 408
Supreme Court of North Carolina·Decided October 11, 1944·Published·Cited by 23 cases

Opinion

*528 Devim, J.

There was evidence sufficient to warrant submission of the case to the jury for an attempt to commit the offenses charged in the bills of indictment. The only assignment of error brought forward isi to the ruling of the court below in admitting in evidence, over objection, the testimony of another daughter of the defendant, an older sister of Margaret Mae Edwards, that within the past three years the defendant several times had made to her improper advances of a similar nature. This testimony was admitted by the court solely for the purpose of showing intent or guilty knowledge on the part of the defendant, and the jury was so instructed. In this ruling we-find no error.

Undoubtedly the general rule is that evidence of a distinct substantive offense is inadmissible to prove another and independent crime where the two are disconnected and in no way related, but there is an equally well established exception to this rule that proof of the commission of like offenses may be competent to show intent, design, guilty knowledge, or identity of person or crime. S. v. Stancill, 178 N. C., 683, 100 S. E., 241; S. v. Ferrell, 205 N. C., 640, 172 S. E., 186; S. v. Harris, 223 N. C., 697; Wigmore, secs. 300-306.

Here, in addition to evidence of incestuous attempts upon the person of the State’s witness by her father, it was competent for the State to offer evidence tending to prove similar attempts and advances to another daughter for the purpose of showing the intent as well as the unnatural lust of the defendant in attempting to commit the crimes charged in the bills of indictment. Intent is one of the elements necessary to sustain a charge of an attempt to commit a criminal offense. S. v. Batson, 220 N. C., 411, 17 S. E. (2d), 511; S. v. Addor, 183 N. C., 687, 110 S. E., 650; S. v. Hewett, 158 N. C., 627, 74 S. E., 356.

In S. v. Ballard, post, 855, a similar case recently decided by this Court, the admissibility of evidence of this character was upheld.

In the trial we find

No error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

State v. . Edwards, 31 S.E.2d 516, 224 N.C. 527, 1944 N.C. LEXIS 408 (N.C. 1944).

31 S.E.2d 516 (State v. . Edwards) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Of Washington, V. Lee C. Lovell
Court of Appeals of Washington, 2025
State v. Crossguns
505 P.3d 529 (Washington Supreme Court, 2022)
United States v. Donnie Lee Pierce, Sr.
16 F.3d 1223 (Sixth Circuit, 1993)
State v. Taylor
735 S.W.2d 412 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1987)
State v. Raye
326 S.E.2d 333 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1985)
State v. Hobson
313 S.E.2d 546 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1984)
State of Iowa v. Spaulding
313 N.W.2d 878 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1981)
Calaway v. United States
408 A.2d 1220 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1979)
State v. Greene
237 S.E.2d 325 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Gainey
233 S.E.2d 671 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1977)
State v. Forehand
194 S.E.2d 157 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1973)
State v. Christopher
128 S.E.2d 667 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1962)
United States v. Rees
193 F. Supp. 849 (D. Maryland, 1961)
State v. McClain
81 S.E.2d 364 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1954)
State v. Smith
74 S.E.2d 291 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1953)
State v. Lowry
57 S.E.2d 479 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
State v. Bryant
55 S.E.2d 922 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
State v. Fowler
53 S.E.2d 853 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1949)
State v. . Davis
50 S.E.2d 37 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1948)