{
  "id": 8625322,
  "name": "STATE v. JAMES L. REEVES",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Reeves",
  "decision_date": "1952-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "427",
  "last_page": "429",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "235 N.C. 427"
    }
  ],
  "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": "65 S.E. 2d 212",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8614654
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "66 S.E. 2d 897",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 N.C. 290",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8621615
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/234/0290-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "52 S.E. 2d 277",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 177",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629034
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0177-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 S.E. 2d 639",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12165947
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 482",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 68",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8623080
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0068-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 207",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 22",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622510
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0022-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "146 S.E. 395",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "196 N.C. 562",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8628339
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/196/0562-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "50 S.E. 2d 740",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "229 N.C. 647",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        12167389
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/229/0647-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "64 S.E. 2d 564",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "233 N.C. 359",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8607963
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/233/0359-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "61 S.E. 2d 107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 N.C. 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8601837
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/232/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 348,
    "char_count": 5579,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.481,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.34574580018554e-08,
      "percentile": 0.481050439620225
    },
    "sha256": "1e8c4efac3f78a980faf9e4a0558625400e796ff65e5bdd4259cce3b7b685ac6",
    "simhash": "1:a527ff0abe76b39c",
    "word_count": 981
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:52:11.505162+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE v. JAMES L. REEVES."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "DbviN, C. J.\nTbe defendant assigns error in tbe ruling of tbe trial judge in denying bis motion for judgment of nonsuit interposed at tbe close of tbe State\u2019s evidence and renewed at tbe conclusion of all tbe evidence.\nNo good purpose would be served by setting out in detail tbe evidence as deposed by tbe witnesses, but we deem it sufficient to say tbat all of tbe evidence shown by tbe record has been given careful consideration, and tbat we conclude tbat defendant\u2019s motion for judgment of nonsuit was properly denied. Evidence was offered tending to show tbe presence in this case of all tbe elements necessary to constitute tbe crime charged in tbe bill of indictment. Tbe age of tbe State\u2019s witness, tbe identity of tbe defendant as tbe perpetrator of tbe offense, and carnal knowledge of tbe witness by tbe defendant are sufficiently shown to carry tbe case to tbe jury.\nTbe defendant by bis motion questions tbe sufficiency of tbe evidence of penetration, but considering all tbe evidence on this point, both tbat of tbe girl and tbe physician, we are of opinion tbat it was sufficient, if accepted by tbe jury, to make out this element of tbe crime of rape. G.S. 14-21; G.S. 14-23; S. v. Monds, 130 N.C. 697, 41 S.E. 789; S. v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 61 S.E. 2d 107. On motion for nonsuit tbe State is entitled to have tbe evidence considered in its most favorable light. Tbe reconciliation of any apparent discrepancy in tbe testimony, tbe weight of tbe evidence, and tbe credibility of tbe witnesses are all matters for tbe jury and not tbe court. S. v. Hovis, 233 N.C. 359, 64 S.E. 2d 564; S. v. Robinson, 229 N.C. 647, 50 S.E. 2d 740; S. v. Lawrence, 196 N.C. 562, 146 S.E. 395.\nThere was no specific exception to tbe judge\u2019s charge to tbe jury, nor request for special instructions on any phase of tbe case, but defendant assigns error in tbat tbe judge failed to instruct tbe jury in regard to tbe law relating to circumstantial evidence. As tbe State\u2019s case was based on tbe direct testimony of witnesses, we are unable to perceive ground for complaint on this score. If defendant desired more specific instructions on any subordinate phase of tbe case, timely request therefor should have been made. S. v. Warren, 228 N.C. 22, 44 S.E. 2d 207; S. v. Brooks, 228 N.C. 68, 44 S.E. 2d 482; S. v. Hicks, 229 N.C. 345, 49 S.E. 2d 639; S. v. Glatly, 230 N.C. 177, 52 S.E. 2d 277.\nTbe defendant\u2019s motion to set aside tbe verdict and for a new trial were properly denied. Tbe defendant denied bis guilt and testified be was elsewhere at tbe time and place of tbe commission of tbe offense charged. He offered other evidence in support of bis contention, but tbe jury accepted tbe State\u2019s evidence as true and rendered verdict that tbe defendant was guilty of rape as charged. Tbe fact that tbe jury under proper instructions from tbe court, as required by G.S. 14-21, also recommended punishment of life imprisonment affords no ground of complaint on tbe part of tbe defendant. That was a matter in tbe discretion of the jury. S. v. Simmons, 234 N.C. 290, 66 S.E. 2d 897; S. v. McMillan, 233 N.C. 630, 65 S.E. 2d 212.\nIt is worthy of note that on cross-examination tbe defendant admitted numerous convictions for larceny, particularly of automobiles, and that be bad been imprisoned in this State and in tbe Federal Penitentiary, and \u201cthat be bad been in and out of prison since be was 13 years old.\u201d\nTbe trial of tbe defendant on tbe charge of rape as contained in tbe bill of indictment was free from error, and tbe verdict and judgment will be upheld.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "DbviN, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.",
      "Styles <& Styles for defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. JAMES L. REEVES.\n(Filed 16 April, 1952.)\n1. Rape \u00a7 11\u2014\n\u2022 Evidence of defendant\u2019s identity as the person who had carnal knowledge of an eight-year-old girl, together with evidence of penetration, held sufficient to be submitted to the jury in a prosecution for rape. G.S. 14-21, G.S. 14-23.\n2. Criminal law \u00a7 52a (1)\u2014\nOn motion to nonsuit, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the State.\n3. Criminal Haw \u00a7 52a (4) \u2014\nReconciliation of apparent discrepancies in the testimony, the weight of the evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, are all matters for the jury and not the court.\n4. Criminal Haw \u00a7 53\u2014\nA party desiring more specific instructions on a subordinate phase of the case must make timely request therefor.\n5. Rape \u00a7 14\u2014\nThe recommendation of the jury for life imprisonment upon conviction of defendant of the crime of rape affords no ground of complaint on the part of defendant. G.S. 14-21.\nAppeal by defendant from Bobbitt, J., January Term, 1952, of Buktcombe.\nNo error.\nThe bill of indictment charged the defendant with the felony of rape. The State\u2019s evidence tended to show carnal knowledge of a girl eight years of age.\nThe State\u2019s witness testified that on the afternoon of 30 October, 1951, she was standing on the sidewalk in front of the Olaxton School in Ashe-ville when a man later identified as the defendant picked her up and took her down into the basement entrance of a near-by church and there committed a rape upon her person. There was other evidence in corroboration. The defendant, a man 30 years of age, denied his guilt and offered evidence tending to show he was elsewhere at the time the crime was alleged to have been committed.\nTbe jury returned verdict of guilty of rape as charged, and recommended life imprisonment. From judgment imposing sentence in accord with tbe verdict tbe defendant appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.\nStyles <& Styles for defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0427-01",
  "first_page_order": 477,
  "last_page_order": 479
}