State v. . Jackson

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. . Jackson

189 S.E. 510, 211 N.C. 202, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 40

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedJanuary 27, 1937

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 189 S.E. 510 (State v. . Jackson) 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. . Jackson, 189 S.E. 510, 211 N.C. 202, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 40 (N.C. 1937).

Pincite

Opinion

Stacy, C. J.

The prosecuting witness is a negro girl nine years of age; the defendant, a negro preacher. The testimony of the prosecutrix in support of the offense charged is positive and direct; that of the defendant in denial, equally positive and direct. The trial of the cause *203 resolved itself into a controverted issue of fact, determinable alone by tbe jury. It is a sordid story, and no useful purpose would be served by soiling tbe pages of our reports witb a detailed recitation of tbe facts.

The competency of the prosecutrix to testify as a witness in the case was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. S. v. Satterfield, 207 N. C., 118, 176 S. E., 466; S. v. Merrick, 172 N. C., 870, 90 S. E., 257. “There being now no arbitrary rule as to age, and it being a question of capacity and of moral and religious sensibility in any given case whether the witness is competent, it must of necessity be left mainly, if not entirely, to the discretion of the presiding judge. S. v. Manuel, 64 N. C., 601. It may be stated, however, that a child of tender years ought to be admitted with great caution; and where there is doubt, it ought to be excluded.” Reade, J., in S. v. Edwards, 79 N. C., 648.

The testimony of Dr. H. M. Hankins, a medical expert, offered by the State, “She bad been penetrated. . . . Won’t swear male did it. . . . I don’t believe an adult of normal development could have intercourse with the prosecutrix,” taken in connection with the child’s apparent immaturity of judgment, or slight appreciation of the effect of her testimony, makes the case quite an unusual one. It will doubtless be reviewed by the commuting authority. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing, on appeal, decisions upon matters of law or legal inference. Const., Art. IV, sec. 8; S. v. Whiteside, 204 N. C., 710, 169 S. E., 711; S. v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 771, 182 S. E., 643.

A searching investigation of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression that no reversible error has been made to appear.

Rio error.

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

Stacy, C. J.

The prosecuting witness is a negro girl nine years of age; the defendant, a negro preacher. The testimony of the prosecutrix in support of the offense charged is positive and direct; that of the defendant in denial, equally positive and direct. The trial of the cause *203 resolved itself into a controverted issue of fact, determinable alone by tbe jury. It is a sordid story, and no useful purpose would be served by soiling tbe pages of our reports witb a detailed recitation of tbe facts.

The competency of the prosecutrix to testify as a witness in the case was a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial court. S. v. Satterfield, 207 N. C., 118, 176 S. E., 466; S. v. Merrick, 172 N. C., 870, 90 S. E., 257. “There being now no arbitrary rule as to age, and it being a question of capacity and of moral and religious sensibility in any given case whether the witness is competent, it must of necessity be left mainly, if not entirely, to the discretion of the presiding judge. S. v. Manuel, 64 N. C., 601. It may be stated, however, that a child of tender years ought to be admitted with great caution; and where there is doubt, it ought to be excluded.” Reade, J., in S. v. Edwards, 79 N. C., 648.

The testimony of Dr. H. M. Hankins, a medical expert, offered by the State, “She bad been penetrated. . . . Won’t swear male did it. . . . I don’t believe an adult of normal development could have intercourse with the prosecutrix,” taken in connection with the child’s apparent immaturity of judgment, or slight appreciation of the effect of her testimony, makes the case quite an unusual one. It will doubtless be reviewed by the commuting authority. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing, on appeal, decisions upon matters of law or legal inference. Const., Art. IV, sec. 8; S. v. Whiteside, 204 N. C., 710, 169 S. E., 711; S. v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 771, 182 S. E., 643.

A searching investigation of tbe record leaves us witb tbe impression that no reversible error has been made to appear.

Rio error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 S.E. 510, 211 N.C. 202, 1937 N.C. LEXIS 40, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-jackson-nc-1937.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack