{ "id": 8626653, "name": "STATE v. ALFRED CHAPMAN", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Chapman", "decision_date": "1942-03-25", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "157", "last_page": "160", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "221 N.C. 157" } ], "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": "216 N. C., 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8613303 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N. C., 14", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8594836 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0014-01" ] }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 821", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "219 N. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 N. C., 415", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620275 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/218/0415-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 670", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631405 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0670-01" ] }, { "cite": "46 S. E., 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "134 N. C., 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11272756 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/134/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "18 S. E., 701", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "113 N. C., 551", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8653580 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/113/0551-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 S. E., 87", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "149 N. C., 533", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11271354 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/149/0533-01" ] }, { "cite": "13 S. E., 90", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "108 N. C., 774", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8651758 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/108/0774-01" ] }, { "cite": "93 N. C., 628", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275013 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/93/0628-01" ] }, { "cite": "175 S. E., 299", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "206 N. C., 798", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8632976 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/206/0798-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 S. E., 13", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "187 N. C., 490", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654176 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/187/0490-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 S. E., 228", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657794 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S. E., 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654529 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "127 S. E., 248", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "189 N. C., 349", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654245 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/189/0349-01" ] }, { "cite": "201 N. C., 494", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626433 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/201/0494-01" ] }, { "cite": "116 S. E., 259", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "185 N. C., 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657376 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/185/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "158 S. E., 252", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "200 N. C., 671", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8625439 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/200/0671-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S. E., 112", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 411", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626801 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0411-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 540, "char_count": 10194, "ocr_confidence": 0.502, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.2703348789236417e-07, "percentile": 0.9157057033054823 }, "sha256": "e52231710fbdfac9d4ddfe1f0534778cd62f9fc572718042d59927a0de73b58a", "simhash": "1:b488cd36e03c0afb", "word_count": 1844 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:01:36.695844+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. ALFRED CHAPMAN." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "DeNNY, J.\nTbe first exception is to tbe court finding as a fact tbat tbe two cases against defendant made one connected story and therefore consolidated tbe cases for tbe purpose of trial. Tbe defendant contends tbat tbe consolidation was prejudicial.\nTbe case of S. v. Rice, 202 N. C., 411, 163 S. E., 112, bolds: \u201cC. S., 4622, regulates tbe consolidation of criminal actions. This statute has been construed in many decisions of this Court. In S. v. Combs, 200 N. C., 671, 158 S. E., 252, it is written: \u2018The court is expressly authorized by statute in this State to order tbe consolidation for trial of two or more indictments in wbicb tbe defendant or defendants are charged with crimes of tbe same class, wbicb are so connected in time or place as tbat evidence at tbe trial of one of tbe indictments will be competent and admissible at tbe trial of tbe others.\u2019 S. v. Lewis, 185 N. C., 640, 116 S. E., 259; S. v. Smith, 201 N. C., 494; S. v. Malpass, 189 N. C., 349, 127 S. E., 248. Moreover, it bas been generally beld that if separate offenses are charged in the same warrant or indictment, they are to be considered as separate counts. S. v. Jarrett, 189 N. C., 516, 127 S. E., 590.\u201d\nThis exception to the consolidation herein complained of cannot be sustained.\nThe second exception is to the refusal of the court to dismiss the bill or count alleging assault with intent to commit rape upon the body of Louise Pate, in that the testimony, as defendant contends, shows clearly that she voluntarily consented to have sexual intercourse with the defendant. The motion to dismiss was made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence. To the refusal of the court to dismiss, the defendant excepted.\nThe defendant then introduced evidence and the motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence was not renewed, as required by C. S., 4643. S. v. Helms, 181 N. C., 566, 107 S. E., 228; S. v. Hayes, 187 N. C., 490, 122 S. E., 13; S. v. Sittings, 206 N. C., 798, 175 S. E., 299.\nThe second exception was waived by the introduction of evidence by the defendant and the failure to renew the motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence.\nThe third exception is to the refusal of the court to permit one of the witnesses for the defendant to testify to statements made by the defendant on the morning following the alleged crime, unless it was understood that the defendant was to testify in his own behalf.\nIn S. v. McNair, 93 N. C., 628, the Court said: \u201cIt is settled by repeated adjudications, that declarations of a prisoner, made after the criminal act has been committed, in excuse or explanation, at his own instance, will not be received; and they are competent only when they accompany and constitute part of the res gestee.\u201d S. v. Stubbs, 108 N. C., 774, 13 S. E., 90; S. v. Peterson, 149 N. C., 533, 63 S. E., 87.\nIn view of the facts in the instant case, unless the evidence was to be offered in corroboration of the defendant\u2019s testimony, it was not admissible.\n\u201cEvidence may be both corroborative and substantive, and when such is the case, it should he admitted for both purposes, and it is error for the judge to limit it to its corroborative effect. But when evidence is not substantive, hut only corroborative as in the case of previous statements of a witness, it is the duty of the trial judge, even without any request for special instructions, to see that the jury fully understand the use of the evidence, so that it may not operate on their minds as substantive proof of the facts in dispute.\u201d Lockhart, Handbook on Evidence, sec. 278, citing Sprague v. Bond, 113 N. C., 551, 18 S. E., 701, and S. v. Parker, 134 N. C., 209, 46 S. E., 511.\nThe defendant did testify in bis own bebalf and the corroborative testimony was properly admitted. The third exception cannot be sustained.\nThe fourth and fifth exceptions are to the refusal of the court to set aside the verdict and order a new trial.\nThe motion to set aside the verdict and grant a new trial was addressed to the discretion of the court, and its refusal to grant same is not reviewable on appeal. S. v. Caper, 215 N. C., 670, 2 S. E. (2d), 864; S. v. Brown, 218 N. C., 415, 11 S. E. (2d), 321; S. v. Wagstaff, 219 N. C., 15, 12 S. E. (2d), 657.\nThis disposes of all of defendant\u2019s exceptions. However, the defendant, through his counsel, makes a motion in the Supreme Court in arrest of judgment, based upon facts which he alleges came to the knowledge of the defendant after the expiration of the trial term.\nRule 21 of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 213 N. C., 821, provides: \u201cEvery appellant shall set out in his statement of case served on appeal his exceptions to the proceedings, ruling, or judgment of the court, briefly and clearly stated and numbered. ... No exception not thus set out, or filed and made a part of the case or record, shall be considered by this Court, other than exceptions to the jurisdiction, or because the complaint does not state a cause of action, or motions in arrest for the insufficiency of an indictment.\u201d\nThere is no fatal defect appearing on the face of the record and the defendant\u2019s motion in arrest of judgment must be denied. S. v. Brown, supra; S. v. Hobbs, 216 N. C., 14, 3 S. E. (2d), 432; S. v. McCollum, 216 N. C., 737, 6 S. E. (2d), 503.\nThe evidence of the State and of the defendant is conflicting, sordid, and repulsive. Louise Pate, the 16-year-old white girl, admitted she had gone to these particular woods on the night of 20 September, 1941, for the purpose of having sexual intercourse with the two white boys who accompanied her to the premises. She further admitted that she had been having sexual intercourse with men since she was eleven years old. The defendant admitted that he had served one term of five years in the penitentiary and had served three terms on the roads. The defendant testified at the trial that he did have sexual intercourse with both Fannie Simmons and Louise Pate on the night of 20 September, 1941, but denied that such acts were against their will. All the evidence was submitted to the jury and the jury found the defendant guilty in both cases.\nIn the trial below, we find\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "DeNNY, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.", "Charles L. Abernethy, Jr., for defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. ALFRED CHAPMAN.\n(Filed 25 March, 1942.)\n1. Criminal Law \u00a7 47 \u2014 Held: Crimes charged were of same class and were so connected in time and place as to permit consolidation of indictments for trial.\nThe evidence tended to show that defendant, a Negro, was walking through woods with a Negro girl and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him against her will, that on the same night, while defendant was still in company with the colored girl, he met a white girl in the company of two white boys, and that after an altercation with the white boys, they and the colored girl left the white girl with defendant and that he forced her to have sexual intercourse'with him against her will. Held: The consolidation of the prosecutions for the purpose of trial was not error. C. S., 4622.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 78d\u2014\nDefendant waives his exception to the refusal of his motion to nonsuit, made at the close of the State\u2019s evidence, by introducing evidence and failing to renew his motion at the close of all the evidence. C. S., 4643.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 34a\u2014\nHeld: The trial court properly refused to permit testimony of declarations made by defendant on the morning following the alleged crime unless defendant was going to testify in his own behalf, since such declarations were not a part of the res gestee and therefore were incompetent as substantive evidence but would be competent only for the purpose of corroborating the testimony of defendant.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 56\u2014\nA motion in arrest of judgment, based upon facts which defendant alleges did not come to his knowledge until after expiration of the trial term, cannot be allowed in the Supreme Court when there is no fatal defect appearing on the face of the record. Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, No. 21.\nAppeal by defendant from Burney, J., at January Term, 1942, of CRAVEN.\nCriminal prosecution tried upon two bills of indictment charging tbe defendant with rape.\nAt tbe call of tbe cases for trial, tbe solicitor announced tbat tbe State would not ask for a verdict of rape, but would ask for a verdict of assault witb intent to commit rape in eacb case. Thereupon tbe court, in its discretion, consolidated tbe two cases for trial.\nTbe State offered evidence tending to show tbat on tbe night of 20 September, 1941, tbe defendant, a 38-year-old colored man, in company witb one Fannie Simmons, a colored girl, went to tbe edge of tbe city of New Bern under tbe pretense on tbe part of tbe defendant, tbat they were going to see a girl friend. After they bad left tbe taxi in wbicb tbey bad been riding, tbe defendant took tbe Simmons girl on a road through tbe woods, still pretending to be in search of tbe friend\u2019s bouse. Fannie Simmons lived in Pamlico County and bad arrived in New Bern tbat day. Tbe prosecutrix testified tbat after she and defendant bad gone along this road into tbe woods for some distance, tbe defendant made an improper proposal to her, and upon her refusal he struck her, first near her left eye, and again on tbe nose, and thereafter forced her to have sexual intercourse with him against her will.\nOn tbe same night, and while defendant was still with tbe colored girl, be met Louise Pate, a white girl, in tbe company of two white boys, and after having an altercation with tbe two white boys, Louise Pate, 16 years of age, testified tbat tbe boys and tbe colored girl left her with tbe defendant and tbat be forced her to have sexual intercourse with him against her will.\nVerdict: \u201cGuilty of an assault with intent to commit rape in each case.\u201d\nJudgment: In case No. 466, tbat tbe defendant be confined in State Prison at Raleigh for a period of seven years, and in case No. 468 tbat tbe defendant be confined in tbe State Prison at Raleigh for a period of eight years. Sentence in No. 468 to begin at tbe expiration of tbe sentence in No. 466.\nTbe defendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton and Patton for the State.\nCharles L. Abernethy, Jr., for defendant." }, "file_name": "0157-01", "first_page_order": 193, "last_page_order": 196 }