{
  "id": 8560754,
  "name": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANCE V. RICHMOND",
  "name_abbreviation": "State v. Richmond",
  "decision_date": "1966-01-14",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "358",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 N.C. 357"
    }
  ],
  "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": "63 N.C. 335",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11277347
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/63/0335-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "86 N.C. 658",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        11275297
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/86/0658-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 S.E. 2d 472",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "228 N.C. 62",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8622996
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/228/0062-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "128 S.E. 2d 803",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "258 N.C. 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8561312
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/258/0491-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2849,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.546,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.118644087747039e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3812942376177144
    },
    "sha256": "babc8a3e5e2c214e01ae4035a92d6ecbb88da24d20057356d5a3b3670901f7fd",
    "simhash": "1:d7dba674d369fe34",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:16:51.556627+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANCE V. RICHMOND."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefendant assigns as error the denial of his motion for judgment of compulsory nonsuit made at the close of the State\u2019s case. Defendant offered no evidence.\nThe indictment is drawn in the language of G.S. 14-202.1, which reads in part: \u201cAny person over 16 years of age who, with intent to commit an unnatural sexual act, shall take, or attempt to take, any immoral, improper, or indecent liberties with any child of either sex, under the age of 16 years, * * *, shall, for the first offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor \u201c * In order to convict a defendant for the offense charged the State\u2019s evidence must show beyond a reasonable doubt not only that defendant committed immoral, improper and indecent liberties with the young girl named in the indictment, but also that he committed such liberties \u201cwith intent to commit an unnatural sexual act.\u201d\nThe State\u2019s evidence, which it would'serve no useful purpose to state, shows that defendant took immoral, improper and indecent liberties with the young girl named in the indictment, but the State has no evidence in the record before us, in our opinion, from which a jury might reasonably come to the conclusion that defendant committed such liberties \u201cwith intent to commit an unnatural sexual act\u201d with her or upon her. Such intent is an essential element in the crime charged and must be proved by the State. At most, the circumstances raise a mere conjecture that defendant had such an intent, and that is an insufficient foundation for a verdict and the case should not have been submitted to the jury. S. v. Langlois, 258 N.C. 491, 128 S.E. 2d 803; S. v. Harvey, 228 N.C. 62, 44 S.E. 2d 472; S. v. Massey, 86 N.C. 658; S. v. Vinson, 63 N.C. 335.\nThe court erred in denying defendant\u2019s motion for a judgment of compulsory nonsuit.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.",
      "Dalton and Long by W. R. Dalton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. VANCE V. RICHMOND.\n(Filed 14 January, 1966.)\nCrime Against Nature \u00a7\u00a7 1, 2\u2014\nSpecific intent to commit an unnatural sexual act is an essential element of the offense defined by C.S. 14-202.1, and when there is evidence tending to show that defendant took immoral, improper and indecent liberties with a minor, but no evidence of the essential specific intent, nonsuit must be entered.\nAppeal by defendant from Bickett, JApril 1965 Criminal Session of ORANGE.\nCriminal prosecution on an indictment charging that defendant unlawfully and wilfully, with intent to commit an unnatural sexual act, did take immoral, improper and indecent liberties with. ., a child under the age of 16 years, he, the said defendant being over the age of 16 years, a violation of G.S. 14-202.1.\nPlea: Not guilty. Verdict: Guilty as charged.\nFrom a judgment of imprisonment defendant appeals.\nAttorney General T. W. Bruton and Staff Attorney Andrew A. Vanore, Jr., for the State.\nDalton and Long by W. R. Dalton, Jr., for defendant appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 393,
  "last_page_order": 394
}