{
  "id": 8626164,
  "name": "STATE v. B. V. HOUPE",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Houpe",
  "decision_date": "1934-11-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "377",
  "last_page": "378",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 N.C. 377"
    }
  ],
  "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": "3 O. S., 4209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ohio St.",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 S. E., 762",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 N. C., 394",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609412
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/194/0394-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 S. E., 507",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "203 N. C., 442",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8612818
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/203/0442-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "69 S. E., 786",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 N. C., 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652005
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/154/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 S. E., 957",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 N. C., 778",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11272353
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/171/0778-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 227,
    "char_count": 3245,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.461,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.986768114613911e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5382721154785473
    },
    "sha256": "c80b8d12aad1a258accbe24aa96de5da8fa09ffd695c0347bd6d32b1d8293f8b",
    "simhash": "1:aef1f482ba3ba6a6",
    "word_count": 532
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:17:31.653514+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. B. V. HOUPE."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nTbe motion to nonsuit was properly overruled. Every element of tbe offense charged is supported by tbe State\u2019s evidence. There was no error in excluding' evidence of improper relations between tbe prosecuting witness and another several months after tbe alleged crime of tbe defendant. S. v. Lang, 171 N. C., 778, 87 S. E., 957; S. v. Malonee, 154 N. C., 200, 69 S. E., 786.\nNor was it reversible error to exclude tbe conversations bad between tbe prosecuting witness and her sister and those between tbe sister of tbe prosecuting witness and their father. These conversations were offered to prove tbe facts therein alleged, when in reality they contained only conclusions of tbe witness. S. v. McLamb, 203 N. C., 442, 166 S. E., 507; S. v. Melvin, 194 N. C., 394, 139 S. E., 762.\n\"While tbe appeal might well be dismissed for failure to comply with tbe rules, still tbe exceptions have been considered.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell and Bruton for the State.",
      "Robert A. Collier, John R. McLaughlin, and J. G. Lewis for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. B. V. HOUPE.\n(Filed 21 November, 1934.)\n1. Rape O c\u2014\nEvery element of tbe crime of having carnal knowledge of a female child under sixteen years of age, 3 O. S., 4209, being supported by the State\u2019s evidence in this case, defendant\u2019s motion as of nonsuit was properly denied.\n2. Rape O b\u2014\nIn a prosecution under 3 O. S., 4209, it is not error to exclude evidence of improper relations between the prosecuting witness and another several months after the alleged crime of the defendant.\n3. Criminal Raw G d\u2014\nTestimony of conversations, offered to prove the facts therein alleged, is properly excluded when such testimony contains only conclusions of the witnesses of such facts.\nAppeal by defendant from Harding, J., at January Term, 1934, of Ieedell.\nCriminal prosecution, tried upon indictment charging tbe defendant with carnal knowledge of a female child between the ages of twelve and sixteen, in violation of 3 C. S., 4209.\nThe evidence of the State tends to show that on 8 September, 1932, the defendant first had illicit intercourse with the prosecuting witness, at that time an innocent and virtuous girl fifteen years of age, and that this was repeated from time to time until 21 January, 1933, when the last act was committed. The prosecuting witness gave birth to a child on 22 October, 1933.\nDemurrer to the evidence or motion to nonsuit overruled. Exception. The defendant offered evidence tending to impeach or question the chastity of the prosecuting witness on 8 September, 1932, Ed. Shoemaker being named as consort.\nThe defendant further offered to show friendly relations between the prosecuting witness and Ed. Shoemaker in April and May, 1933. This evidence was excluded. Objection; exception.\nThe defendant also offered evidence of conversations between the prosecuting witness and her sister, relative to alleged improper relations with Ed. Shoemaker, and similar conversations between the sister of the prosecuting witness and their father. This evidence was excluded. Objection; exception.\nVerdict: Guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.\nJudgment: Eighteen months on the roads.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorneys-General Seawell and Bruton for the State.\nRobert A. Collier, John R. McLaughlin, and J. G. Lewis for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0377-01",
  "first_page_order": 445,
  "last_page_order": 446
}