{
  "id": 8614057,
  "name": "STATE v. WOODROW SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Smith",
  "decision_date": "1940-05-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "591",
  "last_page": "592",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 N.C. 591"
    }
  ],
  "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": "168 S. E., 202",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "204 N. C., 299",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8616749
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/204/0299-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S. E., 2",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 724",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658178
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0724-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 S. E., 900",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 N. C., 967",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11256454
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/172/0967-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S. E., 171",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N. C., 731",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8658233
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0731-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": "59 S. E., 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "145 N. C., 412",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 215,
    "char_count": 2511,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.509,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1302894762757986e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5756103927294602
    },
    "sha256": "e00fe491449f1c4b65d2adf67f80a9ac803422ced2a7fcc802930fd144377d94",
    "simhash": "1:0e287495282d9af3",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:38:29.672243+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. WOODROW SMITH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury is challenged only on one point, i.e., whether the promise of marriage rests alone on the \u201cunsupported testimony of the woman.\u201d The time of the seduction is fixed at about the middle of March, 1939. The defendant says it took place in April. In two letters to the prosecutrix, one dated 18 May, 1939, the other 21 -June, 1939, the defendant admitted the promise. In the last letter he speaks of the promise as having been made \u201clong time ago.\u201d This, taken with the other evidence in the ease, would seem to meet the requirements of the statute. C. S., 4339. S. v. Raynor, 145 N. C., 412, 59 S. E., 344; S. v. Malonee, 154 N. C., 200, 69 S. E., 786. The \u201csupporting evidence\u201d need not be direct. Adminicular proof will suffice. S. v. Cooke, 176 N. C., 731, 97 S. E., 171. Besides, there is evidence that the- defendant and the prosecutrix were \u201cgoing together over a period of two or three months\u201d prior to the alleged seduction, and that the prosecutrix had no other boy friends. S. v. Moody, 172 N. C., 967, 90 S. E., 900; S. v. Fulcher, 176 N. C., 724, 97 S. E., 2. The evidence pertaining to the character of the prosecutrix is conflicting. S. v. Patrick, 204 N. C., 299, 168 S. E., 202.\nThere are two exceptions to the charge, which, standing alone, may be subject to some criticism, but viewed contextually they are not regarded as harmful to the defendant.\nOn the whole, the case appears to have been tried accordant with the applicable decisions, hence the verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.",
      "E. T. Bost, Jr., and W. E. Smith for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. WOODROW SMITH.\n(Filed 22 May, 1940.)\n1. Seduction. \u00a7 8\u2014\nIt is not required that the \u201csupporting evidence\u201d of the promise of marriage coincide with the testimony of the prosecutrix as to the time the promise was made, since it is not required that the \u201csupporting evidence\u201d be direct, adminicular proof being sufficient.\n2. Criminal Daw \u00a7 81c\u2014\nExcerpts from the charge will not be held for reversible error when the charge, construed as a whole, is not prejudicial to defendant.\nAppeal by defendant from Johnston, Special Judge, at November Term, 1939, of Stahly.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon indictment charging the defendant with seduction under promise of marriage in violation of C. S., 4339.\nFrom conviction and judgment thereon the defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nE. T. Bost, Jr., and W. E. Smith for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0591-01",
  "first_page_order": 657,
  "last_page_order": 658
}