State v. Penn

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

State v. Penn

263 S.E.2d 35, 45 N.C. App. 551, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2660

CourtCourt of Appeals of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 4, 1980

DocketNo. 7918SC470

StatusPublished

This text of 263 S.E.2d 35 (State v. Penn) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals 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. Penn, 263 S.E.2d 35, 45 N.C. App. 551, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2660 (N.C. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

WEBB, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the court’s charge that the jury could find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit rape if they found the victim had not reached her twelfth birthday when the indictment did not charge that the victim was under twelve years of age. Defendant was charged under former G.S. 14-22 (now repealed) with assault with intent to commit rape. Although the words of this statute did not make a difference as to assaults upon females who were under twelve years of age as did the statute in regard to rape, it has been held that G.S. 14-22 is a lesser included offense of G.S. 14-21. A person may be convicted of assault with intent to commit rape without proving he intended to gratify his passion notwithstanding any resistance on the part of his intended victim if the State proves the victim was under twelve years of age. See State v. Hartsell, 272 N.C. 710, 158 S.E. 2d 785 (1967). An indictment may charge an assault with intent to commit rape as in the case sub judice or an assault with intent to commit rape on a female under twelve years of age. In the case sub judice the defendant was not charged with an assault to commit rape upon a female under twelve years of age and it was error for the court to submit the case to the jury on that charge. See State v. Carter, 265 N.C. 626, 144 S.E. 2d 826 (1965); State v. Lucas, 267 N.C. 304, 148 S.E. 2d 130 (1966).

[553]*553The defendant has brought forward other assignments of error which we do not consider since they may not recur at a subsequent trial.

New trial.

Judges ARNOLD and WELLS concur.

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

WEBB, Judge.

The defendant assigns as error the court’s charge that the jury could find the defendant guilty of assault with intent to commit rape if they found the victim had not reached her twelfth birthday when the indictment did not charge that the victim was under twelve years of age. Defendant was charged under former G.S. 14-22 (now repealed) with assault with intent to commit rape. Although the words of this statute did not make a difference as to assaults upon females who were under twelve years of age as did the statute in regard to rape, it has been held that G.S. 14-22 is a lesser included offense of G.S. 14-21. A person may be convicted of assault with intent to commit rape without proving he intended to gratify his passion notwithstanding any resistance on the part of his intended victim if the State proves the victim was under twelve years of age. See State v. Hartsell, 272 N.C. 710, 158 S.E. 2d 785 (1967). An indictment may charge an assault with intent to commit rape as in the case sub judice or an assault with intent to commit rape on a female under twelve years of age. In the case sub judice the defendant was not charged with an assault to commit rape upon a female under twelve years of age and it was error for the court to submit the case to the jury on that charge. See State v. Carter, 265 N.C. 626, 144 S.E. 2d 826 (1965); State v. Lucas, 267 N.C. 304, 148 S.E. 2d 130 (1966).

[553]*553The defendant has brought forward other assignments of error which we do not consider since they may not recur at a subsequent trial.

New trial.

Judges ARNOLD and WELLS concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 S.E.2d 35, 45 N.C. App. 551, 1980 N.C. App. LEXIS 2660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-penn-ncctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack