Court Opinion

ID: 9625747
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:50:20.973547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:14.732742
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Bobbitt
dissenting.
The testimony of prosecutrix was sufficient to support the verdict of guilty of rape. However, her testimony was contradicted by testimony of defendant on all crucial aspects of the case.
The preliminary statement in the majority opinion summarizes the testimony of prosecutrix and of defendant relating to the circumstances under which prosecutrix entered defendant’s car, and to their conversation while riding through the streets of Durham and to the area where, according to both prosecutrix and defendant, the act(s) of sexual intercourse occurred.
Although contradicted at all points, there was ample evidence to support a finding that defendant was guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape. To convict one of the crime of an assault with intent to commit rape, “the State must prove (1) an assault by a male upon a female (2) with intent to commit rape, and the felonious intent is the intent to gratify his *53passion:.on the person of the woman at all events against her will and notwithstanding any resistance she may make.” State v. Overcash, 226 N.C. 632, 634, 39 S.E. 2d 810, 811 (1946), and cases cited.
Assuming that defendant was guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape, it does not necessarily follow that he was guilty of rape because he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. He testified positively that his sexual intercourse with prosecutrix was with her consent. Her testimony referred to their philosophical arguments, concluding with her statement that defendant had shown “his will was stronger than hers;” Whether her submission was the result of overpersuasion was for jury consideration. ■
Of course, “[t] he force necessary to constitute rape need not be actüal physical force. Fear, fright, or coercion may take the place of force.” State v. Primes, 275 N.C. 61, 67, 165 S.E. 2d 225, 229 (1969). Here, the prosecutrix’s testimony is that defendant never threatened to harm her physically; that he did not use, display or refer to a weapon of any kind; that.h.e inflicted no bruises; and that her clothes were not torn or damaged. Nothing in her testimony indicated that she' attempted any kind of vigorous physical resistance.
I disavow completely any intent to cast doubt upon the credibility of the testimony of the prosecutrix. In all probability, if,I had been a juror, I would have returned the verdict of guilty of rape. However, where a defendant’s testimony contradicts that of the prosecutrix as to rape and as to assault with intent to commit rape, the jury should not be confined to the single alternative of returning either a verdict of guilty of rape or a verdict of not guilty (of any offense) but should be permitted, if - they consider the evidence warrants, to return a verdict of guilty of the lesser included felony of assault with intent to commit rape.
For the reasons fully stated and documented in my dissenting opinion in State v. Bryant, 280 N.C. 551, 187 S.E. 2d 111 (1972), I would award a new trial on account of the failure of the court to submit for jury consideration whether defendant was guilty of the lesser included felony of an assault with intent to commit rape.
Justice Sharp joins in this dissenting opinion.