{
  "id": 8661479,
  "name": "STATE v. CREWS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Crews",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-09",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "581",
  "last_page": "583",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "128 N.C. 581"
    }
  ],
  "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": "1 Colo., 514",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Colo.",
      "case_ids": [
        5255112
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/colo/1/0514-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Iowa, 260",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Iowa",
      "case_ids": [
        2327994
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/iowa/49/0260-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 N. C., 633",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 N. C., 717",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8698758
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/90/0717-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 291,
    "char_count": 4372,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.368,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.0552265279191237e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8562116941952986
    },
    "sha256": "c2f0b76a78a7e1b09bf0b5c95dca8e29a7e7d5b403d125521095f6b50844bdff",
    "simhash": "1:44d782606b721771",
    "word_count": 747
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:14.013877+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CREWS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Claek, J.\nThe motion to quash was properly overruled. The indictment, exclusive of the merely formal parts, charges that the defendant \u201cdid unlawfully, wilfully and feloniously advise 'and procure a certain woman, called Florence Eiger, to talie a certain noxious drug, called spirits of turpentine, with intent thereby to procure the miscarriage of her, the said Florence Eiger, she being at the time pregnant.\u201d This substantially follows tlie language of The Oode, sec. 976. This is not an attempt to oounaniit another crime in which case the overt act must be charged, which might result in such crime (State v. Colvin, 90 N. C., 717), but here the act charged is the offence itself, which is denounced by the statute.\nThe demurrer to the evidence was properly overruled. It was not iu evidence that defendant procured the drug for the woman, nor was it necessary to so charge. The words \u201cadvise and procure\u201d the \u25a0woman to take the drug means that he not merely \u201cadvised\u201d her to take it (which standing alone is not made indictable in this section, though it is in section 975), but 'that lie also \u201cprocured her,\u201d i. e., prevailed upon her, induced her, to act upon such advice, \u201cwith intent to procure her miscarriage.\u201d\nThere was also evidence sufficient to go to the jury that spirits of .turpentine was noxious, when used internally for this purpose, but if it bad not been, the word \u201cnoxious,\u201d though used in 'indictments for this offence at common law (State v. Slagle, 82 N. C., 633), is omitted in the statute which substitutes \u201cintent\u201d as the chief ingredient in the of-fence. Hence, the word \u201cnoxious\u201d was mere surplusage, and like the description of the weapon and of the wound and other matter used formerly in indictments for murder, hut which, if now inserted in an indictment for homicide, need not be proven.\nThe first prayer for instruction was substantially given in the charge as sent up. The Court need not give the prayer in the very words asked. Clark\u2019s Code (3d Ed.), page 539, and cases cited.\nNor was there any error in charging -the jury \u201cif they believed that the defendant advised and procured Florence Niger to take tnrpieni\u00fcine with intent thereby to procure her miscarriage, it made no difference whether it would procure abortion or not, he would be guilty; that is, it made no dif-ferenee whether turpentine was a noxious drug or not, if th'e defendant advised the prosecutrix to take turpentine with intent thereby to procure her miscarriage he would, be guilty.\u201d As -already pointed out, ait common law, the noxious mature of the drug was essential, but under the statute the essential ingredient is the intent with which the \u201cmedicine, drug or other thing whatsoever,\u201d is used. The nature of the drug or 'article is -material only as throwing light upon the intent. It is no- defence even if defendant could show that the drug would not in fact canse a miscarriage. State v. Fitzgerald, 49 Iowa, 260; Dougherty v. People, 1 Colo., 514; 2 McLain Cr. Law, Sec. 1148, note 10; 1 Bish. New Cr. Law, 769 (4). The law deems no experiment's in an effort to procure abortion innocent, when the jury is convinced that the drug or other article was used with the criminal intent to procure such, 'attempted abortion.\nNo error was committed by Judge Timberlake in the Su-perito Court in overruling the- exceptions taken at the trial in the Criminal Court.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Claek, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert T). Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.",
      "Swink & Swinkj and W. 0. Gox, for the defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CREWS.\n(Filed April 9, 1901.)\n1. ABORTION \u2014 Indictment\u2014Sufficiency\u2014The Code, Sec. 976.\nAn indictment under the Code, Section 976, denouncing, advising and procuring a \u25a0woman to take a drug to produce a miscarriage, need not charge the overt acts committed.\n2. ABORTION \u2014 Indictment\u2014Intent\u2014The Code, Sec. 975.\nIntent being the chief ingredient in the offence of abortion, the word noxious need not be used in the indictment.\n3. ABORTION\u2014 Indictment \u2014 The Code, Sea. 975.\nUnder The Code, Section 975, it is not necessary to charge or prove that the accused procured the drug.\n4. INSTRUCTIONS \u2014 Aboition.\nThe court need not give a charge in the very words asked.\nINjdictmeNT \u2022against J. C. Crews, heard by Judge E. W. Timberlake and a jury, at November Term, 1900, of Foe-syth Country Superior Court. From a verdict of guilty and judgment thereon, the defendant appealed.\nRobert T). Gilmer, Attorney-General, for the State.\nSwink & Swinkj and W. 0. Gox, for the defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0581-01",
  "first_page_order": 617,
  "last_page_order": 619
}