{
  "id": 11271270,
  "name": "STATE v. GEORGE HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1908-12-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "513",
  "last_page": "514",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "149 N.C. 513"
    }
  ],
  "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": "59 Vt., 527",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Vt.",
      "case_ids": [
        11268158
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/vt/59/0527-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Tenn., 152",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Tenn.",
      "case_ids": [
        8536403
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/tenn/95/0152-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Kan., 190",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Kan.",
      "case_ids": [
        1186887
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/kan/44/0190-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2125,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.446,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8574220217112643e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7243665557335582
    },
    "sha256": "58f653429c7f2a3dca89eb7c70fe51a960c7d3516fe498a9373d7dce6a4b4809",
    "simhash": "1:e333ad8095c373ac",
    "word_count": 365
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:43.519867+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. GEORGE HARRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "CokNob, J.\nTbe sole question presented by defendant\u2019s exception to tbe refusal of bis Honor to direct a verdict of not guilty, is whether the daughter of defendant\u2019s half sister comes within the language of' the . statute.. Section 3351 defines incest to be carnal intercourse between grandparent and grandchild, parent and child, brother and sister of the half or whole blo.od. Section 3352 defines the crime to be such intercourse between uncle and niece, nephew and aunt. Eor obvious reasons, nothing is 'said of the half or whole blood, The relation of uncle and niece must of necessity be of the half blood, as -in all other relations of consanguinity, other than those defined in the preceding section. As here, the daughter of defendant\u2019s sister is of course related to him only by the half blood. The fact that the mother of the gii*l is only half sister of defendant can not affect the case. To have had such intercourse with her nfother \u2014 his half sister\u2014 would have been inc\u00e9st. The exact question seems to have been decided in State v. Reedy, 44 Kan., 190, and Shelby v. State, 95 Tenn., 152; State v. Wyman, 59 Vt., 527. We think that defendant and his niece, the daughter of the half sister are clearly within the statute. There was no error in his Honor\u2019s refusal to give the instruction asked. It must be so certified.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "CokNob, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Assistant Attorney General Clement-ios tbe State.",
      "J. A. Lockhart and McLendon & Thomas for defendant. . \u2022 1"
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. GEORGE HARRIS.\n(Filed 2 December, 1908).\nIncest \u2014 Daughter of Half Sister.\nCarnal intercourse of a man with the daughter of his half sister is incest, as defined by Revisal, sec. 3352.\nActioN tried before Webb, J., and a jury, April Term, 1908, of ANSON.\nDefendant was indicted for violating the provisions of sec. 3352 of the Eevisal, charging that he committed incest, in that he had carnal intercourse with a woman'who was the daughter of his half sister. There was evidence tending to prove the act. Defendant requested the court to instruct the jury to return a verdict of not guilty. \u2019 Denied and defendant excepted. Verdict of guilty. Judgment and appeal.\nAssistant Attorney General Clement-ios tbe State.\nJ. A. Lockhart and McLendon & Thomas for defendant. . \u2022 1"
  },
  "file_name": "0513-01",
  "first_page_order": 547,
  "last_page_order": 548
}