{
  "id": 8602240,
  "name": "STATE v. FRANK RANDOLPH",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Randolph",
  "decision_date": "1950-09-20",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "382",
  "last_page": "384",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "232 N.C. 382"
    }
  ],
  "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": "156 S.E. 530",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "200 N.C. 293",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8620334
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/200/0293-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 S.E. 356",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "158 N.C. 627",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656160
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/158/0627-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "199 S.E. 716",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "214 N.C. 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8631561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/214/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 S.E. 2d 812",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "222 N.C. 37",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628303
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/222/0037-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 S.E. 2d 810",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 N.C. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623553
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/226/0632-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 3936,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.493,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20713389081757277
    },
    "sha256": "3d0f299bb64edc2d61557883e09ea83be8dd1dbbf7f400904bded68bc21957ce",
    "simhash": "1:0fea27f4bae7173f",
    "word_count": 669
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:42:59.145817+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. FRANK RANDOLPH."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Stacy, C. J.\nThe case is here principally upon exceptions to the charge. Without undertaking to recapitulate the evidence, or to apply the law to the facts in the case, the court gave several definitions of an assault with intent to commit rape, including the following, to which exceptions are taken:\n\u201cAn assault with intent to commit rape is an assault by a person intending to gratify his passions on the person of a woman notwithstanding any resistance on her part. ... So an attempt to commit rape is an assault upon a woman with this intent to gratify his passion or to have carnal knowledge, simply expressed as sexual intercourse, at all hazards, and against her will, or without her conscious express permission.\u201d And further: \u201cWhen a man assaults a woman, and when he does so with intent to have intercourse with her against her will, that is an assault with intent to commit rape.\u201d\nThe alternative expression in the second instruction, \u201cor without her conscious express permission,\u201d appears twice in the charge. While its repeated use might be considered harmless on the facts of the present record, the question of consent or permission not being mooted, still as the jury was left to make its own application of the charge to the facts in the case we cannot say this was done without prejudice to the defendant, especially in view of the variant definitions given of an assault with intent to commit rape. Without the conscious express permission of the prosecutrix is not perforce the same as \u201cforcibly and against her will,\u201d or without her consent which may be express or implied. S. v. Overcash, 226 N.C. 632, 39 S.E. 2d 810; S. v. Jones, 222 N.C. 37, 21 S.E. 2d 812; S. v. Adams, 214 N.C. 501, 199 S.E. 716; S. v. Hewett, 158 N.C. 627, 74 S.E. 356; Hayes v. Lancaster, 200 N.C. 293, 156 S.E. 530.\nThe crime charged is not an attempt to commit rape, but an assault with intent to commit rape. S. v. Overcash, supra. The assault with the-requisite felonious intent is the gist of the offense. G.S. 14-22.\nAnother hearing seems necessary. It is so ordered.\nNew trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Stacy, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.",
      "D. Emerson Scarborough for defendant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. FRANK RANDOLPH.\n(Filed 20 September, 1950.)\n1. Rape \u00a7 25\u2014\nIn a prosecution for an assault with intent to commit rape, a repeated instruction defining tbe offense as an assault with an intent to bave sexual intercourse with prosecutrix \u201cwithout her conscious express permission\u201d must be held for reversible error notwithstanding that in other portions of the charge the jury was instructed that the intent must be to accomplish the act \u201cforcibly and against her will,\u201d and notwithstanding that the question of consent or permission was not mooted.\n2. Rape \u00a7 24\u2014\nAssault with intent to commit rape is not the same as an attempt to commit rape, but is an assault with the requisite felonious attempt. G.S. 14-22.\nAppeal by defendant from Moore, J., March Term, 1950, of Caswell.\nCriminal prosecution on indictment charging tbe defendant with an assault with intent to commit rape on one Margaret Shelton.\nThe scene of the alleged offense was near Lowrey\u2019s Sawmill about seven miles from Yaneeyville, Caswell County. The time around 5 :00 o\u2019clock in the afternoon of 26 December, 1949. The testimony of the prosecuting witness, a female 32 years of age, and an inmate on probationary leave from Dix Hill, Raleigh, taken in its most favorable light for the prosecution, was sufficient to carry the case to the jury and, if believed, to warrant a conviction. The defendant, while admitting his presence in the neighborhood at the time, denied any knowledge of the offense and testified that he did not see the prosecuting witness on the afternoon in question.\nVerdict: Guilty as charged in the bill of indictment.\nJudgment: Imprisonment in the State\u2019s Prison at hard labor for a term of 15 years.\nDefendant appeals, assigning errors.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nD. Emerson Scarborough for defendant."
  },
  "file_name": "0382-01",
  "first_page_order": 430,
  "last_page_order": 432
}