{ "id": 8624463, "name": "STATE v. WILBERT JOHNSON and CHARLES PRIMUS, JR.", "name_abbreviation": "State v. Johnson", "decision_date": "1946-11-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "671", "last_page": "675", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "226 N.C. 671" } ], "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": "144 S. E., 698", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624840 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0129-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S. E., 593", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 760", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652165 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0760-01" ] }, { "cite": "182 S. E., 643", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 771", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8617854 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0771-01" ] }, { "cite": "106 S. E., 669", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "181 N. C., 535", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8657421 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/181/0535-01" ] }, { "cite": "222 N. C., 543", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8631294 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/222/0543-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S. E., 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "193 N. C., 566", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 2217734 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/193/0566-01" ] }, { "cite": "146 S. E., 139", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "196 N. C., 524", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628025 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/196/0524-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 182", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8602617 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0182-01" ] }, { "cite": "94 N. C., 928", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652495 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/94/0928-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S. E., 761", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8626243 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "189 S. E., 123", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "211 N. C., 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8624469 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/211/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "83 N. C., 605", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11278857 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/83/0605-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S. E., 525", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "106 N. C., 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652082 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/106/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "14 S. E., 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "110 N. C., 491", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274004 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/110/0491-01" ] }, { "cite": "163 S. E., 683", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 631", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627824 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0631-01" ] }, { "cite": "216 N. C., 627", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8611265 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/216/0627-01" ] }, { "cite": "53 S. E., 127", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "141 N. C., 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11253904 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/141/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 S. E., 71", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "182 N. C., 844", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8659240 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/182/0844-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 S. E., 345", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "186 N. C., 582", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8654304 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/186/0582-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S. E., 604", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "199 N. C., 278", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8599333 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/199/0278-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 S. E., 352", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "202 N. C., 782", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8628847 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/202/0782-01" ] }, { "cite": "181 S. E., 323", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "208 N. C., 401", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8607933 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/208/0401-01" ] }, { "cite": "194 S. E., 482", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "212 N. C., 725", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8619002 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/212/0725-01" ] }, { "cite": "197 S. E., 580", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "213 N. C., 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8630329 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/213/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "224 N. C., 128", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8596113 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/224/0128-01" ] }, { "cite": "215 N. C., 333", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8629606 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/215/0333-01" ] }, { "cite": "219 N. C., 15", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8620542 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/219/0015-01" ] }, { "cite": "225 N. C., 332", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8606974 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/225/0332-01" ] }, { "cite": "164 U. S., 644", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 3591241 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/164/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "8 L. R. A., 297", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "L.R.A.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 S. E., 789", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "130 N. C., 697", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11274961 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/130/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "63 N. C., 7", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11276106 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/63/0007-01" ] }, { "cite": "76 N. C., 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8690159 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/76/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 S. E., 828", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "132 N. C., 1000", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8662386 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/132/1000-01" ] }, { "cite": "12 N. C., 142", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8685592 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/12/0142-01" ] }, { "cite": "171 S. E., 50", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "205 N. C., 225", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627771 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/205/0225-01" ] }, { "cite": "221 N. C., 400", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8627957 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/221/0400-01" ] }, { "cite": "24 N. C., 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8694247 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/24/0379-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 685, "char_count": 11546, "ocr_confidence": 0.487, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.1088699707137464e-07, "percentile": 0.7628786465929095 }, "sha256": "d89ebd28323942ed239289ddf679c892c2dfae573aec5b7eb31b3e96abd9effc", "simhash": "1:eb20330e27b7d119", "word_count": 2111 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:52:42.041183+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "STATE v. WILBERT JOHNSON and CHARLES PRIMUS, JR." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe questions presented are whether the cases as made can survive the demurrers. Specifically, the question posed by Primus is whether the evidence shows force sufficient on bis. part to constitute rape; and the question raised by Johnson is whether the evidence renders him a participant in the capital offense. the defendants concede that they conspired to get money by bold-up and robbery on the night in question, but they contend that any additional crime was in excess of their original design. S. v. Trammell, 24 N. C., 379. Cf. S. v. Smith, 221 N. C., 400, 20 S. E. (2d), 360; S. v. Bell, 205 N. C., 225, 171 S. E., 50.\nI. The Case Against Peimus :\n\u201cRape is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against ber will.\u201d S. v. Jim, 12 N. C., 142. This was the early definition of the crime, and it still has the same significance in the law. S. v. Marsh, 132 N. C., 1000, 43 S. E., 828; S. v. Johnston, 76 N. C., 209. Our statute also makes it rape, carnally to know and abuse any female child under the age of twelve years, even though she consents. G. S., 14-21; S. v. Storkey, 63 N. C., 7. In other words, \u201cravishing and carnally knowing any female of the age of twelve years or more by force and against ber will\u201d is rape; and \u201ccarnally knowing and abusing any female child under the age of twelve years\u201d is also rape. G. S., 14-21; S. v. Monds, 130 N. C., 697, 41 S. E., 789.\nIn the instant case, as against Primns, it was incumbent upon the State to show that his connection with the prosecutrix was accomplished \u201cby force and against her will.\u201d \u201cBy force,\u201d however, is not necessarily meant by actual physical force. 52 C. J., 1024. It may be actual or constructive. Anno. 8 L. R. A., 297. Fear, fright, or duress, may take the place of force. 44 Am. Jur., 903. The case is replete with evidence that the prosecutrix submitted \u201con account of fear\u201d and after the defendant had threatened to kill her or do her great bodily harm, if. she resisted. Indeed, the circumstances themselves were terrifying. The prosecutrix and her companion had been held up and robbed in the middle of the night by two strange men whom they regarded as desperadoes. Johnson with gun in hand ordered the prosecutrix to \u201cstay there\u201d in the wooded path with Primus while he marched her companion farther \u201cdown the path.\u201d Under these circumstances, the prosecutrix \u201csubmitted to Primus on account of fear.\u201d The jury has found that the intei\u2019course was against her will; that she was prevented from fiercely resisting by terror or the exhibition of force, and .that she was \u201covercome by numbers or terrified by threats, or- in such place and position that resistance would have been useless,\u201d and might have been fatal. Mills v. United States, 164 U. S., 644, 41 L. Ed., 584; 44 Am. Jur., 904. The evidence against Primus was sufficient to carry the case to the jury, and his demurrer was properly overruled. S. v. Sutton, 225 N. C., 332, 34 S. E. (2d), 195; S. v. Wagstaff, 219 N. C., 15, 12 S. E. (2d), 657; S. v. Page, 215 N. C., 333, 1 S. E. (2d), 887.\nII. The Case Againtst JonisrsoN :\nThe theory of the prosecution against Johnson is, that he was present, aiding and abetting in the commission of the rape. S. v. Ham, 224 N. C., 128, 29 S. E. (2d), 449; S. v. Epps, 213 N. C., 709, 197 S. E., 580; S. v. Ray, 212 N. C., 725, 194 S. E., 482; S. v. Gosnell, 208 N. C., 401, 181 S. E., 323; S. v. Donnell, 202 N. C., 782, 164 S. E., 352; S. v. Beal, 199 N. C., 278, 154 S. E., 604; S. v. Hart, 186 N. C., 582, 120 S. E., 345; S. v. Skeen, 182 N. C., 844, 109 S. E., 71; S. v. Jarrell, 141 N. C., 722, 53 S. E., 127. While Primus was the actual rapist, still it was Johnson who provided the opportunity and afforded the protection. S. v. Kelly, 216 N. C., 627, 6 S. E. (2d), 533. After a whispered conversation with Primus he ordered 'the prosecutrix to \u201cstay there\u201d with Primus in the wooded path, and then commanded her companion to move farther into the woods. S. v. Bell, supra.\nIf not the real author of the crime, Johnson was \u201cthe boss,\u201d directing the movements of the parties, lending aid and comfort by his presence and consenting unto the wrong. This made him a partaker of the offense and pariiceps criminis. S. v. Whitehurst, 202 N. C., 631, 163 S. E., 683. True, he again demanded of Guignard to know where his money was, but tbis, tbe prosecution contends, was only a ruse as tbe money bad already been taken. As soon as tbe crime was ac'complisbed, tbe prose-cutrix and ber companion were freed by tbeir captors.\nTbe single crime of rape may be committed by more tban one offender. S. v. Jordan, 110 N. C., 491, 14 S. E., 752; S. v. Dowell, 106 N. C., 722, 11 S. E., 525; S. v. Jones, 83 N. C., 605; Anno. 8 L. R. A., 297. If others are present, aiding and abetting tbe actual ravisber, tbey would all be principals and equally guilty. S. v. Triplett, 211 N. C., 105, 189 S. E., 123. Aiders and abettors wbo assist in tbe perpetration of a crime are principals, and may be tried as sucb. S. v. Holland, 211 N. C., 284, 189 S. E., 761; S. v. Hart, supra; S. v. Fox, 94 N. C., 928. \u201cWhere two persons aid and abet each other in tbe commission of a crime, both being present, both are principals and equally guilty.\u201d S. v. Jarrell, supra; S. v. Williams, 225 N. C., 182, 33 S. E. (2d), 880.\nTbe evidence against Johnson was sufficient to carry tbe case to tbe jury, and bis demurrer was properly overruled. S. v. Lambert, 196 N. C., 524, 146 S. E., 139; S. v. Baldwin, 193 N. C., 566, 137 S. E., 590; S. v. Hart, supra.\nThese are tbe only exceptions presented by tbe appeal. Tbey are without special merit on tbe present record, and are not sustained. Tbe court\u2019s inquiry, upon demurrer to tbe evidence, is directed to its sufficiency to carry tbe case to the jury or to support a verdict, and not to its weight or to tbe credibility of tbe witnesses. S. v. Vincent, 222 N. C., 543, 23 S. E. (2d), 832; S. v. Rountree, 181 N. C., 535, 106 S. E., 669. Tbe jury alone are tbe triers of tbe facts. S. v. Anderson, 208 N. C., 771, 182 S. E., 643. We are not permitted to weigh tbe evidence here. S. v. Fain, 106 N. C., 760, 11 S. E., 593. \u201cIn considering a motion to dismiss tbe action under tbe statute, we are merely to ascertain whether there is any evidence to sustain tbe indictment; and in deciding tbe question we must not forget that tbe State is entitled to tbe most favorable interpretation of tbe circumstances and all inferences that may fairly be drawn from them. ... It is not tbe province of tbis Court to weigh tbe testimony and determine what tbe verdict should have been, but only to say whether there was any evidence for tbe jury to consider; and if there was, tbe jury alone could determine its weight\u201d \u2014 Adams, J., in S. v. Carr, 196 N. C., 129, 144 S. E., 698.\nTbe verdict and judgments will be upheld.\nNo error.", "type": "majority", "author": "Stacy, C. J." } ], "attorneys": [ "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.", "A. B. Breece for defendants." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "STATE v. WILBERT JOHNSON and CHARLES PRIMUS, JR.\n(Filed 6 November, 1946.)\n1. Rape \u00a7\u00a7 1, 8\u2014\nCarnally knowing any female of tbe age of twelve years or more by force and against ber will is rape; and carnally knowing and abusing any female child under tbe age of twelve years is also rape, C. S., 14-21.\n2. Rape \u00a7 1\u2014\n\u201cForce\u201d as an element of rape may be either actual or constructive, and submission under fear or duress may take the place of actual physical force.\n3. Rape \u00a7 1% \u2014\nThe single crime of rape may be committed by more than one offender, and a person who is present and aids and abets the actual ravisher, is a principal and equally guilty.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 8\u2014\nAiders and abettors who assist in the perpetration of a crime are principals.\n5. Rape \u00a7 4 \u2014 Evidence of guilt of both defendants of rape, one as perpetrator and other as aider and abettor, held sufficient.\nEvidence that defendants, in the middle of the night, pursuant to an admitted conspiracy to rob, took charge of a parked automobile occupied by prosecutrix and her male companion, drove it into the county, robbed the occupants and forced them to alight, and that one of defendants then ordered prosecutrix to remain at the spot with the other defendant, and forced her companion, at pistol point, to march two hundred feet away with him, and that while thus separated from her companion, the defendant who remained with prosecutrix threatened to kill her or do her great bodily harm if she resisted, and in the circumstances where resistance would be useless and might have been fatal, prosecutrix submitted to him \u201con account of fear\u201d is held sufficient to carry the case to the jury as to the guilt of each defendant on the capital charge of rape, one as the actual perpetrator, and the other as an aider and abettor.\n6. Criminal Law' \u00a7\u00a7 52a, 8 If\u2014\nA demurrer to the evidence presents the sufficiency of the evidence considered in the light most favorable to the State, to carry the case to the. jury or to* support the verdict, and neither the trial court nor the Supreme Court on appeal may pass upon the weight of the evidence or the credibility of the witness.\nAppeal by defendants from Harris, J., at June Term, 1946, of Wake.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging the defendants with rape.\nFollowing arrest of judgment at the Spring Term, 1946, reported ante, 266, for defect in bill of indictment, another bill ivas duly returned against the defendants charging them with the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Upon this indictment they were again tried and convicted.\nThe record discloses that on the night of 19 June, 1945, about the hour of 11:45 p.m. Charles Primus, Jr., and Wilbert Johnson (Negroes), armed and admittedly bent on robbery, took charge of an automobile which was parked on Whitaker Mill Road in the northern part of the City of Raleigh and occupied at the time by John Guignard and Virginia Lipscomb (Whites), drove it a distance of about six miles into the country, ran it into a ditch, got out and ordered the occupants to do likewise, demanded their pocketbooks, commanded them to go down a road in the woods; the defendants then held a whispered conversation, after which Johnson, with gun in hand, directed Miss Lipscomb to \u201cstay there,\u201d with Primus and marched Guignard approximately 200 feet down a path and demanded to know where his money was. While the parties were thus separated, Primus had intercourse with the prosecutrix after threatening to kill her if she did not submit. She says, \u201cI submitted to Primus on account of fear.\u201d Tbe defendants were over 18 years of age; and tbe prosecutrix was 25 years old at tbe time of tbe assault.\nSoon after tbe rape was accomplished tbe defendants freed tbe prose-cutrix and ber companion and allowed tbem to make tbeir way to a bouse in tbe neighborhood.\nTbe defendants admitted in statements in tbe nature of confessions that they obtained $650 from- Guignard and $38 from Miss Lipscomb. Each originally claimed tbe other committed tbe rape, but finally Primus admitted be was tbe one who actually assaulted tbe prosecutrix. Johnson was tried on tbe theory of an accessory, being present, aiding and abetting in tbe perpetration of tbe capital offense. He was referred to by Primus as \u201ctbe boss\u201d of tbe bold-up conspiracy.\nVerdict: Guilty of rape as to each defendant.\nJudgments: Death by asphyxiation as to both defendants.\nDefendants appeal, assigning as error tbe refusal of tbe court to sustain tbeir demurrers and dismiss tbe action as in case of nonsuit. G. S., 15-173.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorneys-General Bruton, Rhodes, and Moody for the State.\nA. B. Breece for defendants." }, "file_name": "0671-01", "first_page_order": 719, "last_page_order": 723 }