{
  "id": 8653556,
  "name": "STATE v. ROBERTSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Robertson",
  "decision_date": "1897-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "551",
  "last_page": "555",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "121 N.C. 551"
    }
  ],
  "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": "118 N. C., 928",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8654350
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/118/0928-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "78 N. C., 555",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8697890
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/78/0555-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "67 N. C., 285",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2092681
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/67/0285-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 N. C., 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8686719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/75/0115-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Am. Dec. 172",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "Am. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "55 Penn. St. 77",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1470695
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/55/0077-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 493,
    "char_count": 9098,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.403,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9489260029974008e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7364827061346048
    },
    "sha256": "ebfde3a82a0d39bc3280b4af3705f00f30486fc6ba7661e1893271000def67ff",
    "simhash": "1:cfad92bcc6000909",
    "word_count": 1623
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:04:04.541275+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. ROBERTSON."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "FuRChes, J.:\nThis is an indictment for seduction under promise to marry, under the Act of 1885, Chapter 248.\nThere are three exceptions presented by the record, two as to evidence and one as to remarks made by the Judge during the progress of the trial, in which it is alleged the Judge expressed an opinion as to the facts in the case prejudicial to the defendant.\nThe State asked Julia Hester, the prosecutrix, if subsequent to September 1893 there were other illicit acts committed by them of a carnal character. This was objected to by defendant but allowed by the Court and the witness answered in the affirmative that there had been other acts since the first.\nThis ruling of the Court is sustained by Wharton's Criminal Evidence, Section 35; Sherwood v. Tilman, 55 Penn. St. 77, and by a note in Weaver v. Bechart, 44 Am. Dec. 172, where Sherwood v. Tilman, is quoted with approval.\nAs the third exception is also as to evidence, we will consider it next. Thomas Hester testified that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix before September 1893, the alleged date of the first intercourse with the defendant.\nJ. W. Upcliurcli testified in behalf of the State that he had a conversation with the witness, Thomas Hester, at his mill a few days before the trial in the civil action, in which he asked Thomas if it was true that he had sexual intercourse with Julia Hester, the prosecuting witness, when Thomas replied that it was not true; that he knew nothing of her, but that she was a lady.\nThere was evidence that Ray Parrish, Upchurch\u2019s miller, heard this conversation. Parrish was introduced by the State and testified: \u201cT saw Thomas Hester at the mill the day he refers to and heard him talking; they were just outside. 1 heard Thomas Hester mention Julia Hester\u2019s name and T went to them immediately and heard Thomas Hester, say, \u2018It is not so, I always found her to be a lady.\u2019 \u201d To this evidence the defendant objected and upon it being allowed excepted, upon the ground that it was fragmentary.\nWe do not think so. It contained the whole matter in dispute, and if true proved that Thomas Hester had testified falsely, and nothing that Thomas could have said could have explained it to mean anything but that she was a virtuous woman, so far as lie knew. There was no error in allowing this evidence. Davis v. Smith, 75 N. C., 115.\nThe second exception was urged with great earnestness and seems to have been principally relied upon by the defendant. It. is an alleged violation of Section-413 of The Code. During the progress of the trial which seems to have lasted for more than a day, there had been considerable disorder on the part of some of the persons present at the trial. This disorder was loud outbursts of laughter, which the Court had undertaken each time to suppress. During the examination of the prosecutrix, Julia Plester, she was asked by the State if she had ever, at any time, permitted any man, other than the defendant, to have carnal knowledge of lier; and when she replied, weepingly bitterly, in a trembling voice, \u201cNo sir, no sir,\u201d there was great and long-continued laughter on the part of certain of the audience. \u2018The Court reproved them severely, saying \u2018Order, order; let the laughter stop at once. If I could discover the infernal fiends who laugh in such a manner, I would send them to jail for contempt.\u201d Without approving of the language in which this reprimand was administered, we do approve of the reprimand. The Judge could not have maintained his,own self respect nor the respect of others for the Court over which he presided, if he had not reproved and reproved sharply such, unseemly and disrespectful conduct. And, as it was his duty to keep order and to reprimand and to punish, if need be, parties engaged in such disreputable conduct, we are at a loss to see how the language used by the Judge could prejudice the defendant. It may be \u2014 we do not say that it did \u2014 that the sharp reproof administered by the Court prevented this clacking from having the effect that the defendant wished it to have. Whether this be so or not, it must be understood that order will be maintained in our Courts, and that causes civil or criminal must be tried bjr the evidence in the case and the law as pronounced by the Court. It lias not come to this, that a Judge cannot maintain order in Court (even though ho uses .language in doing so that we do not approve), without laying .himself liable to the charge of violating Section 418 of Hie, Code,. What he said was not to the witnesses, not to the counsel, not to the defendant, but to-those creating a disorder. And liow the defendant can come to the conclusion that he was prejudiced, we cannot see, unless he was expecting the disorder to benefit him in some way.\nThe Statute, Section 413 of The Code, only prohibits the Judge from expressing an opinion upon those facts respecting which the parties take issue or dispute. If he does tbis \u2014 expresses an opinion \u2014 in any manner or at any time during the trial, he violates the Statute, if it is done in such a manner as to prejudice either party. But it devolves upon the party complaining to show that the Court has in some way expressed an opinion on the facts and that it is prejudicial to him, or that it must he reasonably inferred that he was prejudiced thereby.\nIn State v. Jones, 67 N. C., 285, it is held that there must be some clear proof that an unfair effect was likely to be produced by the mode 'adopted, before it' can be considered \u201cas a violation\u201d of the Statute, Section 413 of The Code.\nIn State v. Browning, 78 N. C., 555, it is said that \u201cunless it appears with ordinary certainty that the rights of the prisoner have been in some way prejudiced by the remarks or conduct of the Court, it cannot be treated as error,\u201d under the Statute.\nIn Williams v. Lumber Co., 118 N. C., 928, in discussing the rule under Section 413 of The Code, it is said the Court admitted a paper in evidence under the -objection of the other side \u201cremarking in a very pointed maimer that the Court would allow the paper to be read and risk it; that when people contracted debts they must pay them.\u201d And this was held not to be a violation of Section 413. This case contains a full discussion of the learning on this subject, in which the most of the authorities are collected.\nTherefore, tested by reason as well as by authority, we are of the opinion there was no error in law committed in the reprimand, nor in the manner o'f making it, prejudicial to the defendant. The judgment is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "FuRChes, J.:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. Zeb V Wals&r, Attorney General, and Messrs. Jones & Boykin, for the State.",
      "Messrs. Battle & Mordecai and Argo & Snow, for defendant (appellant)."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. ROBERTSON.\nIndictment for Seduction \u2014 Enicjpnce\u2014Impeachment of Witnesses \u2014Tried\u2014Expression of Opinion by Tried hedge.\n1. It. is competent for tlie State, in the trial of an indictment for seduction, to show that there was sexual intercourse between the parties subsequent to the first alleged act.\n2. In the trial of an indictment for seduction one H. testified, for the defence, that he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix prior to the date of the alleged seduction. One U. for the State, testified that in a conversation with him the said H. had stated, in reply to a question, that he had never had illicit intercourse with the prosecu-trix and that she was a lady. Another witness for the State was allowed to testify that he was near H. and U at the time of the conversation and that, hearing the name of the prosecutrix mentioned, he went near to the parties and heard H. say \u201cIt is not so. I always found her to be a lad,y \u201d The latter testimony was objected to as fragmentary. Held, that the testimony was competent since it contained the whole matter in dispute and nothing that H. could have said could have explained it to mean anything other than that the prosecutrix was a virtuous woman, so far as he knew.\n3. Code, Section 413, only prohibits the trial Judge from expressing an opinion upon those facts respecting which the parties take issue or dispute and, in order to constitute a violation of the Statute, remarks complained of must be shown to have been an expression of opinion on the facts and prejudicial to the party complaining of the same; but where, in the trial of an indictment for seduction, the prosecutrix in reply to a question, tearfully and energetically denied that she had ever had carnal intercourse with any one but the defendant and the crowd of bystanders laughed boisterously, and thereupon the trial Judge, in attempting to quell the disturbance, remarked, \u201cIf I could discover the infernal fiends who laugh in such a manner, I would send them to jail for contempt,\u201d such remarks were not an expression of opinion on the facts involved in the prosecution.\nINDICTMENT for seduction, tried before Robinson, J., and a jury at July Term, 1897, of Wake Superior Court. The defendant was convicted and appealed assigning as error the admission of certain evidence for the State and the remarks of his Honor to bystanders at the trial.\nMr. Zeb V Wals&r, Attorney General, and Messrs. Jones & Boykin, for the State.\nMessrs. Battle & Mordecai and Argo & Snow, for defendant (appellant)."
  },
  "file_name": "0551-01",
  "first_page_order": 581,
  "last_page_order": 585
}