State v. Wade

Supreme Court of North Carolina

State v. Wade

141 S.E.2d 34, 264 N.C. 144, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1134

CourtSupreme Court of North Carolina

DecidedMarch 24, 1965

Docket330

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 141 S.E.2d 34 (State v. Wade) 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. Wade, 141 S.E.2d 34, 264 N.C. 144, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1134 (N.C. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

PeR CuRiam.

The State offered in evidence the testimony of one witness, Peggy Jean Vernatte. She testified without objection as follows in substance: She is married to Jesse Willard Vernatte. She met defendant in 1962. She became pregnant by defendant in June or July 1963, which resulted in her giving birth to James Ray Vernatte on 13 March 1964. Defendant' is his father. She asked him to'support his son, which he refused to do, and she took out a warrant against him.

For the purpose of showing npnaccess of.her husband when the child was begotten, the State was permitted, over defendant’s objections, to have Peggy Jean Vernatte to testify to the effect that she and her husband separated on 9 July 1961 in Jacksonville, Florida, and she has not seen him since. The defendant excepted to the admission of this evidence, and assigns its admission as error.

The rule is firmly settled in this jurisdiction that neither the husband nor the wife is competent to testify as to the nonaccess of the husband in a bastardy or other proceeding, where such testimony tends to bastardize a child of the wife either begotten or born during the ex-

istence of the marriage. The evidence of nonaccess, if there be such, must come from third persons. S. v. Aldridge, 254 N.C. 297, 118 S.E. 2d 766; S. v. Campo, 233 N.C. 79, 62 S.E. 2d 500; S. v. Bowman, 231 N.C. 51, 55, S.E. 2d 789; S. v. Bowman, 230 N.C. 203, 52 S.E. 2d 345; Ray v. Ray, 219 N.C. 217, 13 S.E. 2d 224; Boykin v. Boykin, 70 N.C. 262, 16 Am. Rep. 776; S. v. Wilson, 32 N.C. 131; S. v. Pettaway, 10 N.C. 623. Therefore, the court committed error in receiving the evidence given by Peggy Jean Vernatte.

In Ray v. Ray, supra, the Court, speaking of the competency of a married woman to testify as to the paternity of her child born in wed *146 lock, had this to say: “The wife is not a competent witness to prove the nonaccess of the husband. ® However, she is permitted to testify as to the illicit relations in actions directly involving the parentage of the child, for in such cases, proof thereof frequently would be an impossibility except through the testimony of the woman.”

For error in the admission of prejudicial evidence, defendant is entitled to a new trial. S. v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E. 2d 777. The Attorney General with his customary fairness confesses error.

The solicitor should move in the superior court to amend the warrant so as to allege the date of the offense charged.

New trial.

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

PeR CuRiam.

The State offered in evidence the testimony of one witness, Peggy Jean Vernatte. She testified without objection as follows in substance: She is married to Jesse Willard Vernatte. She met defendant in 1962. She became pregnant by defendant in June or July 1963, which resulted in her giving birth to James Ray Vernatte on 13 March 1964. Defendant' is his father. She asked him to'support his son, which he refused to do, and she took out a warrant against him.

For the purpose of showing npnaccess of.her husband when the child was begotten, the State was permitted, over defendant’s objections, to have Peggy Jean Vernatte to testify to the effect that she and her husband separated on 9 July 1961 in Jacksonville, Florida, and she has not seen him since. The defendant excepted to the admission of this evidence, and assigns its admission as error.

The rule is firmly settled in this jurisdiction that neither the husband nor the wife is competent to testify as to the nonaccess of the husband in a bastardy or other proceeding, where such testimony tends to bastardize a child of the wife either begotten or born during the ex-

istence of the marriage. The evidence of nonaccess, if there be such, must come from third persons. S. v. Aldridge, 254 N.C. 297, 118 S.E. 2d 766; S. v. Campo, 233 N.C. 79, 62 S.E. 2d 500; S. v. Bowman, 231 N.C. 51, 55, S.E. 2d 789; S. v. Bowman, 230 N.C. 203, 52 S.E. 2d 345; Ray v. Ray, 219 N.C. 217, 13 S.E. 2d 224; Boykin v. Boykin, 70 N.C. 262, 16 Am. Rep. 776; S. v. Wilson, 32 N.C. 131; S. v. Pettaway, 10 N.C. 623. Therefore, the court committed error in receiving the evidence given by Peggy Jean Vernatte.

In Ray v. Ray, supra, the Court, speaking of the competency of a married woman to testify as to the paternity of her child born in wed *146 lock, had this to say: “The wife is not a competent witness to prove the nonaccess of the husband. ® However, she is permitted to testify as to the illicit relations in actions directly involving the parentage of the child, for in such cases, proof thereof frequently would be an impossibility except through the testimony of the woman.”

For error in the admission of prejudicial evidence, defendant is entitled to a new trial. S. v. Virgil, 263 N.C. 73, 138 S.E. 2d 777. The Attorney General with his customary fairness confesses error.

The solicitor should move in the superior court to amend the warrant so as to allege the date of the offense charged.

New trial.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 S.E.2d 34, 264 N.C. 144, 1965 N.C. LEXIS 1134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-wade-nc-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack