{
  "id": 8651758,
  "name": "THE STATE v. E. W. STUBBS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Stubbs",
  "decision_date": "1891-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "776",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "108 N.C. 774"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C.",
    "id": 9292,
    "name": "Supreme Court of North Carolina"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 N. C., 754",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/84/0754-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 893",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652646
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/104/0893-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 N. C., 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650862
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/100/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "99 N. C., 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650106
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/99/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N. C., 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11274398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 487",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697502
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0487-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 N. C., 744",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N. C., 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8650388
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/103/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 N. C., 628",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275013
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/93/0628-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 296,
    "char_count": 4761,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.528,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.857690745935298e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8999144351659112
    },
    "sha256": "e4f049d6b3ebe7ada1599bd9278299e7caa9dc8b1c22a8bb67d87b4c6c717846",
    "simhash": "1:bf7569261670441d",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:38:29.877932+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE STATE v. E. W. STUBBS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MekrimoN, C. J.:\nThe feme defendant, on the cross-examination of a witness for the State, asked the latter whether, on some occasion while she was in possession of property of the male defendant, and before the indictment, she had not told the witness that her brother had driven her from home, and that her father had paid the male defendant, who had married her cousin, to take her on his farm as a work-hand?\nThe question had reference to declarations of the feme defendant made after the offence charged in the indictment. The evidence, if material, was properly rejected. What a party says exculpatory of himself after the offence was committed, and not part of the res gestee, is not evidence for him. Otherwise he might make evidence for himself. State v. McNair, 93 N. C., 628, and cases there cited; State v. Ward, 103 N. C., 419; State v. Moore, 104 N. C., 744.\nThe appellant testified in his own behalf, and was asked if he had not heard the feme defendant\u2019s father order her to leave his house, and if he had not seen letters from her father and brother declaring she could not stay at her father\u2019s house. Upon objection, the Court excluded reference to the letters. The evidence seems to have been of slight importance, and the mere mention of letters was simply cumulative, if evidence at all. The exclusion complained of was, in any view of it, too slight to constitute ground for a new trial. Whitehurst v. Hyman, 90 N. C., 487; McGowan v. Railroad, 95 N. C., 417; Livingston v. Dunlap, 99 N. C., 268.\nThe State produced evidence tending to show that the defendants had been seen driving together since the prosecution began, and this was received in connection with other evidence going to show their lascivious association within two years next before this action began. As to this evidence the Court instructed the jury \u201cthat they could only find the defendants guilty upon proof of this association \u2014 bedding and cohabiting with each other within two years next before the finding of the bill of indictment \u2014 but that the evidence offered of acts before that time, and also acts after finding of the bill of indictment, should be considered by them as explaining the relation of the parties within the two years preceding the finding of the bill.\u201d This is assigned as error. The objection is unfounded. The evidence objected to was received in connection with other pertinent evidence, and as tending in some degree to prove the adulterous character of the association of the parties. State v. Guest, 100 N. C., 410; State v. Wheeler, 104 N. C., 893.\nThe motion in arrest of judgment cannot be allowed. The indictment sufficiently charges the substance of the offence. It does not charge, in the terms of the statute, as regularly it should do, that the defendants did \u201c lewdly and lasciviously associate,\u201d etc., but it does charge that they \u201c unlawfully did associate, bed and cohabit together, and then and there did commit fornication and adultery, contrary to the form of the statute,\u201d etc., and it also charged that they were \u201c not united together in marriage.\u201d All this must imply that they did \u201c lewdly and lasciviously associate.\u201d State v. Lashley, 84 N. C., 754. It is always safer and better to charge the statutory offence in the words of the statute, when this can be conveniently done, but when the offence is charged substantially, in all respects, the indictment must be upheld as sufficient.\nThere is no error, and the judgment must be affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MekrimoN, C. J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Attorney General, for the State.",
      "No counsel for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "THE STATE v. E. W. STUBBS.\nFornication and Adultery \u2014 Evidence\u2014Indictment.\n1. The declarations of a party made after the commission of the offence with which he is charged, not res gestae, are incompetent as evidence for him.\n2. The rejection of evidence cumulative in its natlire, and of slight importance, will not constitute ground for a new trial.\n3. Evidence of the conduct of persons indicted for fornication and adultery, since the institution of the prosecution, may be received in explanation of their relations prior to the time of the finding of the bill.\n4. An indictment for fornication and adultery which did not charge that defendants did \u201clewdly and lasciviously associate,\u201d etc., but does charge that they \u201cunlawfully did associate, bed and cohabit together, and did, then and there, commit fornication and adultery,\u201d sufficiently describes the offence.\nAppeal from Catawba Superior Court, Pall Term, 1890, Armfield, J., presiding.\nThe defendant, and a feme defendant, who did not appeal, were indicted for the offence of fornication and adultery, and pleaded not guilty. There was a trial and verdict of guilty, and judgment thereon, from which the male defendant appealed to this Court.\nThe Attorney General, for the State.\nNo counsel for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 808,
  "last_page_order": 810
}