{
  "id": 8614440,
  "name": "STATE v. CLINTON LEWIS",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Lewis",
  "decision_date": "1944-12-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "774",
  "last_page": "775",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "224 N.C. 774"
    }
  ],
  "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": "106 S. E., 817",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "181 N. C., 546",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8657517
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/181/0546-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "72 S. E., 853",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "157 N. C., 578",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8659190
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/157/0578-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "163 S. E., 873",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "202 N. C., 700",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628276
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/202/0700-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 304,
    "char_count": 4927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1780936117892947e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5879813842428652
    },
    "sha256": "d94673c61109b7b9301eff97c24c7943e3d31a9591325460064fc4d347cf321a",
    "simhash": "1:146f0418ba8e96d8",
    "word_count": 869
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:53:33.218655+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. CLINTON LEWIS."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WiNBORNE, J.\nAppellant first contends on this appeal that while the warrant charges that he, the defendant, is over the age of eighteen years, there is no proof of this fact, and that, hence, there is error (1) in the refusal to grant his motions for judgment of nonsuit, G. S., 15-173, and (2) in instructing the jury: (a) that \u201cunder the evidence and the law applicable to the evidence in this case, . . . you may find the defendant guilty of an assault upon a female, he being a male person over 18 years of age . . .\u201d (b) that \u201cupon that evidence the State says and contends\u201d that the jury \u201cought to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of an assault upon a female, he being a male person over 18 years of age,\u201d and (c) that if the jury \u201cfind from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on the 22nd day of December, 1943, the defendant, Clinton Lewis, committed an assault on the prosecuting witness, Ila Mae Holmes, as I have heretofore defined that offense to you, then it will be your duty to render a verdict of guilty against the defendant for an assault on a female, if you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant is over the age of 18 years.\u201d In these assignments we find no error of which defendant may properly complain.\nThe decisions of this Court construing Gr. S., 14-33, formerly C. S., 4215; Revisal, 3620, as amended, which relates to punishment for assaults, hold that \u201cWhere a male defendant is charged with an assault upon a female, there is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is over eighteen years of age, which presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is evidence to be considered by the jury . . .\u201d Headnote 2 in 8. v. Lefier, 202 N. C., 700, 163 S. E., 873. And in the opinion in that case it is said that \u201cthe age of the assailant is a matter of defense,\u201d citing 8. v. Smith, 157 N. C., 578, 72 S. E., 853; 8. v. Jones, 181 N. C., 546, 106 S. E., 817, but that \u201cthis did not imply, however, that the jury is not required to determine the defendant\u2019s age.\u201d The subject is fully discussed in these cases. Moreover, while there is in the record on appeal no positive evidence as to the age of the defendant, it does appear that witnesses for defendant referred to him as \u201cthat man,\u201d and he is described as \u201ca married man.\u201d And, though defendant testified as a witness on the trial below, he made no statement as to his age, and there is nothing in the record that tends to show that he contended that he was under the age of eighteen years at the date of the alleged offense.\nIn the light of the above settled rule of law, applicable to the facts in hand, the motions for judgment of nonsuit were properly overruled, and there is in the instructions to which the exceptions relate no error of which defendant may properly complain. The warrant charges that defendant is \u201ca male person over the age of 18 years,\u201d and the jury finds defendant is \u201cguilty as charged in the warrant.\u201d\nDefendant next contends that there is error in portions of the charge to the jury on the plea of self-defense set up and relied upon by him, and that the court failed to charge fully on this plea. The charge as given substantially covers the subject, and is sufficient to meet the requirements of law.\nOther assignments have been considered and are found to be without merit.\nIn the judgment below we find\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WiNBORNE, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.",
      "Caswell P. Britt, T. A. McNeill, and Robert H. Dye'for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. CLINTON LEWIS.\n(Filed 13 December, 1944.)\nAssault and Battery \u00a7\u00a7 7g, 9\u2014\nWhere a male defendant is charged with an assault upon a female, G-. S., 14-33, there is a rebuttable presumption that the defendant is over 18 years of age, which presumption, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is evidence to be considered by the jury; but this does not imply that the jury is not required to determine defendant\u2019s age.\nAppeal by defendant from Burney, J., at January-February Criminal Term, 1944, of RobesoN.\nCriminal prosecution upon a warrant, issued out of Recorder\u2019s Court of Lumberton District in Robeson County, North Carolina, charging that defendant, \u201ca male person over the age of 18 years\u201d did unlawfully and willfully assault one Ila Mae Holmes, \u201ca female person,\u201d \u201cby cursing, abusing and threatening and by twisting her arm and throwing her down causing painful bodily injuries,\u201d contrary to the form of the statute, etc., heard de novo in Superior Court of Robeson County upon appeal thereto by defendant from judgment of said recorder\u2019s court.\nVerdict: \u201cGuilty as charged in the warrant.\u201d\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the common jail of Robeson County for a period of twelve months, to be assigned to work the roads under the supervision of the State Highway and Public Works Commission.\nDefendant appeals to Supreme Court and assigns error.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Rhodes and Moody for the State.\nCaswell P. Britt, T. A. McNeill, and Robert H. Dye'for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0774-01",
  "first_page_order": 822,
  "last_page_order": 823
}