{
  "id": 8662135,
  "name": "STATE v. RIPPY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Rippy",
  "decision_date": "1900-10-30",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "516",
  "last_page": "518",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "127 N.C. 516"
    }
  ],
  "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": "123 N. C., 745",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8661106
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/123/0745-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 N. C., 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8653523
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/121/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "91 N. C., 650",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698261
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/91/0650-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "94 N. C., 918",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652455
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/94/0918-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 201,
    "char_count": 2758,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.411,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7457749842524645e-07,
      "percentile": 0.707756320928363
    },
    "sha256": "7a88f77e3a844cf368723240e3f7ad9bafa0906c11370352a8a2f958d7cf6e13",
    "simhash": "1:d9118dfa2b200bbf",
    "word_count": 470
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:22.932964+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. RIPPY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OlabK, J.\nThe prisoner*, indicted for rape, entered a plea of guilty upon the third count, for \u201cunlawfully and carnally knowing and abusing\u201d 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 \u201cshall bq punished by fine or imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison, at t'he discretion of the Court.\u201d The sentence is, \u201cTen years in the State\u2019s Prison,\u201d 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 \u201cno specific punishment is prescribed by statute\u201d 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 \u2014 fully as much so as that laid down in Cod\u00a9; 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 \u2014 -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 \u201cin the discretion of the Court,\u201d or \u201cnot exceeding,\u201d etc. It can not be said that all the crimes in The Code, therefore, fall within the scope of secs. 1096 and 1097, because \u201cno specific punishment\u201d is prescribed. The punishment is specific (i. e. specified as fine, or imprisonment in jail or in State\u2019s 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.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "OlabK, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Zeb. V. Walser, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "Boone, Bryant & Biggs, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. RIPPY.\n(October 30, 1900.)\nRape \u2014 Punishment\u2014Sentence\u2014State\u2019s Prison \u2014 The Code, Sec. 1096.\nSentence of a person convicted of rape to 10 years in the State's prison, under Acts 1895, chap. 295, does not contact with The Code, sec. 1096.\nINdictmbNT against Ollie Rippy, heard by Judge W. A. Holce and a jury, at September Term, 1900, of Dubham Superior Court. Erom verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nZeb. V. Walser, Attorney-General, for the State.\nBoone, Bryant & Biggs, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0516-01",
  "first_page_order": 546,
  "last_page_order": 548
}