{
  "id": 8626398,
  "name": "STATE v. HANNIBAL WOOD",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Wood",
  "decision_date": "1952-05-21",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "636",
  "last_page": "638",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "235 N.C. 636"
    }
  ],
  "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": "52 S.E. 2d 895",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 N.C. 312",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8629741
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/230/0312-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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 Am. Rep. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Mo. 385",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mo.",
      "case_ids": [
        441743
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mo/74/0385-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "216 La. 932",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "La.",
      "case_ids": [
        10036297,
        2900742
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/so2d/45/0083-01",
        "/la/216/0931-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Am. Rep. 691",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "Am. Rep.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "49 Ind. 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ind.",
      "case_ids": [
        1411801
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ind/49/0544-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 N.C. 659",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275351
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/95/0659-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 S.E. 398",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 N.C. 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8656214
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/176/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 S.E. 848",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.C. 810",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8615200
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/190/0810-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 5901,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.505,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.6117844905407112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6857175843070388
    },
    "sha256": "7a086efc3d13e38677fef11e33ca661c4d2020edfc09c80d66f22fdd61cb983e",
    "simhash": "1:04374ce61d1d8d61",
    "word_count": 1023
  },
  "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. HANNIBAL WOOD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "EetiN, J.\nThe defendant makes these assertions by his assignments of error:\n1. That the court erred in refusing to dismiss the prosecution upon a compulsory nonsuit. G.S. 15-173.\n2. That the court erred in instructing the jury that a reasonable doubt may arise \u201cout of the evidence or the insufficiency of the evidence in the case.\u201d\nA father violates G.S. 14-178 and by reason thereof is guilty of the statutory felony of incest if he has sexual intercourse, either habitual or in a single instance, with a woman or girl whom he knows to be his daughter in fact, regardless of whether she is his legitimate or his illegitimate child. S. v. Sauls, 190 N.C. 810, 130 S.E. 848; Strider v. Lewey, 176 N.C. 448, 97 S.E. 398; S. v. Laurence, 95 N.C. 659; Baumer v. State, 49 Ind. 544, 19 Am. Rep. 691; State v. Alexander, 216 La. 932, 45 So. 2d 83; State v. Ellis, 74 Mo. 385, 41 Am. Rep. 321.\nThere is no statute providing that the testimony of the prosecutrix must be corroborated by the evidence of others in a prosecution for incest. In consequence, a conviction for incest may be had against a father upon the uncorroborated testimony of the daughter if such testimony suffices to establish all of the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. 42 C.J.S., Incest, section 17. This being true, the court rightly adjudged that the evidence of the State in the case at bar made the defendant\u2019s guilt a question for the jury.\nIn reaching this conclusion, we have not ignored the interesting contention of the defendant that the contradictory statements made by the prosecutrix out of court proved her to be wholly unworthy of belief and completely nullified the probative force of her sworn testimony at the trial, and that for this reason, if no other, the prosecution ought to have been involuntarily nonsuited. This contention runs counter to the well established rule that whether a witness has been successfully impeached by evidence showing that he made prior contradictory statements out of court is a matter for the jury alone. What was said in S. v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 61 S.E. 2d 107, is germane here. \u201cThis argument misconceives the office of the statutory motion for a judgment of nonsuit in a criminal action. In ruling on such motion, the court does not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, or take into account any evidence contradicting them offered by the defense. The court merely considers the testimony favorable to the State, assumes it to be true, and determines its legal sufficiency to sustain the allegations of the indictment. Whether the testimony is true or false, and what it proves if it be true are matters for the jury.\u201d\nThe court did not err in charging that a reasonable doubt may arise \u201cout of the evidence or the insufficiency of the evidence in the case.\u201d This instruction is in substantial accord with the accepted rule that \u201cit is proper to charge . . . that a reasonable doubt may arise either from the evidence or from a want of evidence, and that the absence of sufficient satisfying evidence may be a ground for a reasonable doubt of guilt.\u201d 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, section 1283. See, also, in this connection: S. v. Braxton, 230 N.C. 312, 52 S.E. 2d 895.\nAccording to the verdict of the jury, the defendant has sinned grievously against his motherless child. This tragic case calls to mind the execration of the Man of Galilee. \u201cIt were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.\u201d Luke 17 :2.\nNo error.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "EetiN, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton ;for the State.",
      "J. H. Cook and H. H. Clark for the defendant, appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE v. HANNIBAL WOOD.\n(Filed 21 May, 1952.)\n1. Incest \u00a7 1\u2014\nA father is guilty of incest if he has sexual intercourse, either habitual or in a single instance, with a woman or girl whom he knows to be his daughter in fact, regardless of whether she is his legitimate or his illegitimate child.\n2. Incest \u00a7 2\u2014\nIt is not required that the testimony of the daughter be corroborated in a prosecution for incest, and her testimony alone will take the case to the jury if it establishes each element of the offense and defendant\u2019s guilt thereof.\n3. Criminal Law \u00a7 52a (2) \u2014\nTestimony that prosecutrix had made contradictory exculpatory statements out of court is insufficient ground for nonsuit, even in a prosecution based solely upon her testimony, since whether a witness has been successfully impeached is a matter for the jury alone, and the court, in passing upon the motion, must consider only the evidence favorable to the State and assume it to be true.\n4. Criminal Law \u00a7 53b\u2014\nAn instruction that a reasonable doubt may arise out of the evidence or the insufficiency of the evidence in the case is without error.\nAppeal by defendant from Bona, J., and a jury, at January Term, 1952, of Cumbebland.\nCriminal prosecution of a father for incest with his daughter.\nThe State made out this case by the testimony of the prosecutrix:\nThe prosecutrix is the daughter of the defendant by his marriage to her mother, who died before the day named in the indictment. On that day the defendant compelled the prosecutrix, who was then a fifteen year old inmate of his home, to engage in sexual intercourse with him. Shortly \"thereafter the prosecutrix related the sordid details of tbe affair to her maternal grandmother and a deputy sheriff.\nThe prosecutrix admitted on cross-examination that while the case was awaiting trial she made both oral and written statements out of court to witnesses for the defense indicating that she had falsely charged the accused with incest because she \u201cthought it would break him from drinking.\u201d\nThe jury found the defendant guilty of the crime alleged, and the court sentenced him to imprisonment in the State prison. The defendant excepted and appealed.\nAttorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton ;for the State.\nJ. H. Cook and H. H. Clark for the defendant, appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0636-01",
  "first_page_order": 686,
  "last_page_order": 688
}