State v. Rippy.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Rippy.

37 S.E. 148, 127 N.C. 516, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 122

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedOctober 30, 1900

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 37 S.E. 148 (State v. Rippy.) 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. Rippy., 37 S.E. 148, 127 N.C. 516, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 122 (N.C. 1900).

Pincite

Opinion

*517 OlabK, J.

The prisoner*, indicted for rape, entered a plea of guilty upon the third count, for “unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing” an innocent female between the ages of ten and fourteen years. The solicitor, with the sanction of the Court, accepted the plea, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly. This offense was created by chap. 295, Laws 1895, which provides that it “shall bq punished by fine or imprisonment in the State’s Prison, at t'he discretion of the Court.” The sentence is, “Ten years in the State’s Prison,” which is clearly within the terms of the punishment authorized. There is nothing to show that this discretion reposed by the statute in the Judge was abused. The only exception in the transcript is that Code, sec. 1096, provides that persons convicted of felonies for which “no specific punishment is prescribed by statute” shall be imprisoned in the county jail or penitentiary not exceeding two years, and be fined, in the discretion of the Court. But the penalty prescribed by chap. 295, Laws 1895, is specific — fully as much so as that laid down in Cod©; sec. 1096, and is different in kind. The former authorizes fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary at the discretion of the Court. The latter, a fine in the discretion of the Court, and imprisonment in jail or the penitentiary, not exceeding two years, etc. These sections (1096 and 1097) apply only where an act is prohibited or is made unlawful, without specifying the nature of punishment — -as, for instance, Code, sec. 2799, construed in State v. Bloodworth, 94 N. C., 918. To like purport, State v. Parker, 91 N. C., 650; State v. Addington, 121 N. C., 538; State v. Pierce, 123 N. C., 745. The quantum of punishment, whenever mentioned in The Code, is either “in the discretion of the Court,” or “not exceeding,” etc. It can not be said that all the crimes in The Code, therefore, fall within the scope of secs. 1096 and *518 1097, because “no specific punishment” is prescribed. The punishment is specific (i. e. specified as fine, or imprisonment in jail or in State’s Prison), though the extent of the specified punishment is left in the discretion of the Court, or in its discretion not exceeding a limit stated.

No error.

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

*517 OlabK, J.

The prisoner*, indicted for rape, entered a plea of guilty upon the third count, for “unlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing” an innocent female between the ages of ten and fourteen years. The solicitor, with the sanction of the Court, accepted the plea, and the jury returned a verdict accordingly. This offense was created by chap. 295, Laws 1895, which provides that it “shall bq punished by fine or imprisonment in the State’s Prison, at t'he discretion of the Court.” The sentence is, “Ten years in the State’s Prison,” which is clearly within the terms of the punishment authorized. There is nothing to show that this discretion reposed by the statute in the Judge was abused. The only exception in the transcript is that Code, sec. 1096, provides that persons convicted of felonies for which “no specific punishment is prescribed by statute” shall be imprisoned in the county jail or penitentiary not exceeding two years, and be fined, in the discretion of the Court. But the penalty prescribed by chap. 295, Laws 1895, is specific — fully as much so as that laid down in Cod©; sec. 1096, and is different in kind. The former authorizes fine or imprisonment in the penitentiary at the discretion of the Court. The latter, a fine in the discretion of the Court, and imprisonment in jail or the penitentiary, not exceeding two years, etc. These sections (1096 and 1097) apply only where an act is prohibited or is made unlawful, without specifying the nature of punishment — -as, for instance, Code, sec. 2799, construed in State v. Bloodworth, 94 N. C., 918. To like purport, State v. Parker, 91 N. C., 650; State v. Addington, 121 N. C., 538; State v. Pierce, 123 N. C., 745. The quantum of punishment, whenever mentioned in The Code, is either “in the discretion of the Court,” or “not exceeding,” etc. It can not be said that all the crimes in The Code, therefore, fall within the scope of secs. 1096 and *518 1097, because “no specific punishment” is prescribed. The punishment is specific (i. e. specified as fine, or imprisonment in jail or in State’s Prison), though the extent of the specified punishment is left in the discretion of the Court, or in its discretion not exceeding a limit stated.

No error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.E. 148, 127 N.C. 516, 1900 N.C. LEXIS 122, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-rippy-nc-1900.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack