{
  "id": 8629144,
  "name": "STATE v. OTIS HARRIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Harris",
  "decision_date": "1942-10-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "222 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": "164 S. E., 337",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 809",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629047
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0809-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N. C., 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8595826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 S. E., 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "207 N. C., 618",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8627645
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/207/0618-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 S. E., 800",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "186 N. C., 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8652596
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/186/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "132 S. E., 151",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 N. C., 528",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8630195
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/191/0528-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 N. C., 570",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8609820
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/216/0570-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "114 S. E., 6",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 N. C., 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11269892
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/184/0235-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 328,
    "char_count": 5621,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.491,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.661345672466421e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6943115216369757
    },
    "sha256": "6f1efb926868e5d93afd1259462a6cfb1c6cc37309fe8df1e9925c77e3e7e6af",
    "simhash": "1:1259e58e362a207f",
    "word_count": 974
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:48:14.759571+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. OTIS HARRIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Devin, J.\nThe evidence disclosed by the record was amply sufficient to support the verdict and judgment. Without undertaking to state the evidence in detail it may be said that there was testimony tending to show that on the occasion charged the State\u2019s witness, Mrs. Warren, the wife of a farmer, in the absence of her husband, was doing some work at a tobacco plant bed 200 yards from the house. The defendant, an employee of her husband, had been plowing in a field near-by. He came to the plant bed where she was and there criminally assaulted her, choking her into insensibility and fracturing her skull with a brick. There was evidence that the crime charged was completed. Every ele'ment necessary to constitute the felony of rape was made to appear. The defendant\u2019s motion for judgment as of nonsuit was properly denied. The defendant\u2019s other assignments of error relate to the court\u2019s ruling on the admission of testimony. We will consider these in order.\nThe objection to the evidence that the State\u2019s witness\u2019 child had been burned, and that her husband had taken the child to the doctor is without merit. This was competent to account for the absence of her husband, and to show that she was alone at the time of the assault.\nThere was no error in permitting this witness to testify, in answer to a question, that the defendant had sexual relations with her, and the objection based upon the suggestion that she did not understand the meaning of the words used in the solicitor\u2019s questions, or that by reason of the injuries she received she was not competent to testify, cannot be sustained. There was no evidence that she was not mentally competent to testify. Lanier v. Bryan, 184 N. C., 235, 114 S. E., 6.\nThe fact that one of the solicitor\u2019s questions was leading affords no ground for complaint. Uniformly it has been held that this is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge, and no prejudice therefrom is discernible here. S. v. Hargrove, 216 N. C., 570, 5 S. E. (2d), 852; S. v. Buck, 191 N. C., 528, 132 S. E., 151. The objection to the testimony of several witnesses offered in corroboration of Mrs. Warren is untenable, since her testimony was subjected to attack. S. v. Bethea, 186 N. C., 22, 118 S. E., 800; S. v. Gore, 207 N. C., 618, 178 S. E., 209.\nThe defendant\u2019s exception to the admission in evidence of his confession as to certain material facfs cannot be sustained. The trial judge heard evidence as to the circumstance and character of the alleged confession, and found that the defendant\u2019s statement was voluntary and made without inducement, threat or hope of reward. This finding was supported by evidence which was not contradicted. S. v. Fain, 216 N. C., 157, 4 S. E. (2d), 319. There was no evidence that defendant\u2019s confession was wrung from him \u201cby flattery of hope, or by the torture of fear.\u201d S. v. Livingston, 202 N. C., 809, 164 S. E., 337.\nThe testimony that at the tobacco plant bed, shortly after the alleged assault, near a puddle of blood, was found a brick with hairs clinging to it, was competent, as was also the admission of the brick as an exhibit.\nThe defendant in his testimony on the trial admitted assaulting Mrs. Warren and striking her, but denied the accomplishment of the crime, or that he struck her with a brick. The court\u2019s charge to the jury was free from error, and no exception thereto was noted.\nThe defendant has received a fair trial. The evidence was direct and positive, and he has no legal ground of complaint that the jury accepted the State\u2019s evidence and found him guilty of the crime charged in the bill of indictment.\nThe judgment is affirmed, and in the trial we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Devin, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "\u25a0Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Aitorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State, appellee.",
      "Claude J. Gray and S. Russell Lane for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. OTIS HARRIS.\n(Filed 14 October, 1942.)\n1. Rape \u00a7 Id\u2014\nIn a criminal prosecution for rape, there was evidence that defendant criminally assaulted a woman at a place 200 yards from her home and in the absence of her husband, choking her into insensibility, fracturing- her skull with a brick, and accomplishing his purpose, motion for nonsuit was properly denied.\n2. Criminal Law \u00a7 Ilf: Rape \u00a7 lc\u2014\nIn prosecution for rape tbe victim may testify to defendant\u2019s having improper relations with her, in the absence of evidence that she was not mentally competent on account of injuries received from the assault.\n3. Evidence \u00a7 21\u2014\nLeading questions by the prosecutor have uniformly been held to be in the discretion of the trial judge and no prejudice therefrom is discernible here.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 41e\u2014\nTestimony in corroboration of the prosecuting- witness is competent and proper, since her evidence was subject to attack.\n5. Criminal Law \u00a7 33\u2014\nThe admission in evidence of defendant\u2019s confession to certain material facts was proper, the trial judge having heard evidence as to the circumstances and character of the alleged confession, and found the same voluntary and made without inducement, threat, or hope of reward.\n6. Criminal Law \u00a7 32a\u2014\nThe admission in evidence, in trial for rape, of a brick found by a pool of blood, shortly after and near the scene of the crime, with hairs clinging to it, was competent, defendant having admitted the assault, but having denied accomplishing his purpose and striking his victim with a brick.\nAppeal by defendant from Stevens, J., at May Term, 1942, of Beetie.\nNo error.\nThe defendant was charged with the capital felony of rape. The j\u2019ury returned verdict of guilty. From judgment imposing sentence of death the defendant appealed.\n\u25a0Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Aitorneys-General Patton and Rhodes for the State, appellee.\nClaude J. Gray and S. Russell Lane for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 203
}