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

State v. . Hargrave

65 N.C. 466
CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina
DecidedJune 5, 1871
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 65 N.C. 466 (State v. . Hargrave) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State v. . Hargrave, 65 N.C. 466 (N.C. 1871).

Opinion

Boyden, J.

There is no error. His Honor left it to the jury, upon the testimony, to find whether there had been any penetration ; stating that any, the least penetration was sufficient to constitute the crime of rape, and that it was not necessary to constitute this crime, that the hymen should be ruptured. His Honor was well warranted by authority in thus charging the jury. See 9 Carrington & Payne 572 and note, Bishop’s Criminal Law, Vol. 2, Sec. 1078, American Criminal Law, Vol. 2, Section 1138.

*467 In the case of the State v. Grey & Jones, decided at December Term, 1860, it was held that to constitute the crime of rape there must be proof of emission, as well as penetration, to constitute this crime.

The act of the 29th February, 1861, changed the law and enacted that the offence of rape “ should be claimed and taken in law to be complete upon proof of penetration ‘ only.’ ”

There being no error, this will be certified, that the Court may proceed to judgment agreeable to law.

Pee Cueiam. Judgment affirmed.

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

Related

Romulus v. Romulus
715 S.E.2d 308 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 2011)
State v. Johnson
347 S.E.2d 7 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1986)
LP v. Natrona County Department of Public Assistance & Social Services
679 P.2d 976 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1984)
McDonald v. State
512 S.W.2d 636 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Tennessee, 1974)
State v. Murry
176 S.E.2d 738 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1970)
State v. Jones
105 S.E.2d 513 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1958)
Walker v. State
273 S.W.2d 707 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1954)
State v. Massey
266 P.2d 359 (New Mexico Supreme Court, 1954)
State v. Bowman
61 S.E.2d 107 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1950)
Commonwealth v. Taylor
161 N.E. 245 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1928)
State v. Hamilton
263 S.W. 127 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1924)
State v. . Lance
81 S.E. 1092 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1914)
Poe v. State
129 S.W. 292 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1910)
State v. Monds
41 S.E. 789 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1902)
State v. Carnagy
76 N.W. 805 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1898)
Barker v. State
40 Fla. 178 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1898)
People v. Crowley
4 N.Y. Crim. 26 (New York Supreme Court, 1886)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
65 N.C. 466, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-hargrave-nc-1871.