{
  "id": 8622563,
  "name": "STATE v. MORGAN SHATLEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Shatley",
  "decision_date": "1931-06-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "85",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "201 N.C. 83"
    }
  ],
  "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": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 293,
    "char_count": 4334,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.456,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6343475431493036e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6899562484144829
    },
    "sha256": "6e4ddfbd487873ddd740deccff14cc3077608fe4f111c8730628a86b965d0109",
    "simhash": "1:3fc975ab5776f0c2",
    "word_count": 760
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:25:15.863450+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. MORGAN SHATLEY."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ClakksoN, J.\nC. S., 4339, is as follows: \u201cIf any man shall seduce an innocent and virtuous woman under promise of marriage, be shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned at tbe discretion of tbe court, and may be imprisoned in tbe State\u2019s prison not exceeding tbe term of five years: Provided, tbe unsupported testi-. mony of tbe woman shall not be sufficient to convict: Provided further, that marriage between tbe parties shall be a bar to further prosecution hereunder. But when such marriage is relied upon by tbe defendant, it shall operate as to the costs of the case as a plea of nolo contendere, and the defendant shall be required to pay all the costs of the action or be liable to imprisonment for nonpayment of the same.\u201d\nDefendant was indicted, tried and convicted and sentenced under the above statute. At the close of the State\u2019s evidence and at the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for judgment of nonsuit. C. S., 4643. The court below overruled the motions. The defendant excepted, assigned error and appealed to this Court. \u00a5e think the motions should have been allowed.\nThe prosecuting witness testified: \u201cI had sexual intercourse with him on the night of 20 October, 1927. It occurred in Mocksville, Davie County. I did this because he 'promised to marry me if anything happened. ... I never had sexual intercourse with any other man except the defendant, and not with him until he promised to marry me.\u201d\nConstruing the above testimony as a whole, the promise was conditional, but to convict one under the statute the promise must be absolute.\nIn 35 Cyc., at p. 1336, speaking to the subject, citing a wealth of authorities, is the following: \u201cBy the weight of authority, under the statutes punishing seduction only when under a promise of marriage, the promise must be absolute, and not conditional upon other events than the intercourse, and a promise to marry in case the woman becomes pregnant or \u2018gets into trouble,\u2019 etc., is not sufficient.\u201d\nIn S. v. Crowell, 116 N. C., at p. 1057, it is said: \u201cIndeed deceit is the very essence of this offense, the warp and woof of it so to speak.\u201d\nIn S. v. Cline, 170 N. C., at p. 752, we find: \u201cSexual intercourse is not an indictable offense under this statute, nor is seduction itself a criminal offense, but it is the seduction of an innocent and virtuous woman under the promise of marriage that constitutes a criminal offense. As has been said: \u2018The purpose of this statute is to protect innocent and virtuous women against wicked and designing men, who know that one of the most potent of all seductive arts is to win love and confidence by promising love and marriage.\u2019 \u201d S. v. Ferguson, 107 N. C., at p. 848.\nIn S. v. Johnson, 182 N. C., at p. 888, is the following observation: \u201cThe statute was passed to guard, and protect, the innocent and virtuous woman, and not those who seek only to gratify their own lustful desires and have no proper regard for the sacredness and purity of the marriage promise, and do not even wait for it, before yielding their persons to the embraces of evil-minded men. In such a case, the woman is considered to be as bad as he is, and beyond the pale of the law\u2019s protection under this statute.\u201d\nTbis is not a case of seduction under promise of marriage, wbicb promise must be absolute and not conditional, but it appears from the evidence to be a ease of bastardy. The law on that subject is fully set forth in C. S., ch. 6, \u201cBastardy.\u201d The prosecuting witness is not without remedy under the bastardy statute.\nFor the reasons given, the judgment in the court below is\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ClakksoN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.",
      "Trwette & Holslumser and F. J. McDuffie for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. MORGAN SHATLEY.\n(Filed 15 June, 1931.)\nSeduction A lb \u2014 Promise of marriage must be absolute for conviction of seduction under O. S., 4339.\nIn order for conviction of the offense of seduction of an innocent and virtuous woman under promise of marriage, O. S., 4339, the promise of marriage must be absolute and unconditional, and a promise at the time to marry the woman in the event \u201canything should happen to her,\u201d is insufficient for a conviction under the statute.\nAppeal by defendant from Schenclc, J., and a jury, at March Term, 1931, of WilKes. Reversed.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.\nTrwette & Holslumser and F. J. McDuffie for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 157,
  "last_page_order": 159
}