Court Opinion

ID: 9812642
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:43:58.948421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:42.934924
License: Public Domain

ClaRK, C. J.,
dissenting: The prisoner, a negro, 18 or 19 years old, is charged with burglary, in breaking into the dwelling-house of one A. B. Allen, in the night-time, occupied at the time by himself and family, with the felonious intent to ravish his wife, then and there sleeping in said dwelling-house, etc. The evidence for- the State shows that the defendant entered said dwelling-house some time after 11 o’clock on the *310nigbt of 13 April, 1923, by raising a window in one of the rooms and putting a stick of wood under it to hold it up, and after entering the house, and some time during the night, he crawled under the bed in which Mrs. Allen was sleeping, and thereafter the following happened, according to her testimony: “I was awakened that night, but I do not know just what time. The first thing that woke me was an ice-cold hand, and I almost jumped off the bed. The hand went back when I jumped, and in about a minute the hand came back. That time it dawned on me it was not Mr. Allen. I was lying fiat on my back, with my left hand under my head and my right hand down by my side. I reached out with my right hand and found that Mr. Allen’s hand was warm. While I was reaching out for Mr. Allen the hand came up the third time. I tried to whisper to my husband, fearing we would all be butchered. The ice-cold hand was under the bed-clothes and touched my flesh, above my knee, three times, to my knowledge.” The jury convicted the prisoner of burglary in the first degree.
The prisoner testified that he was in a drunken condition on the night in question and did not know what he was doing. If this were a valid precedent, as a defense, it would leave our women unprotected in their homes at night, at the mercy of any brute who will testify, or even prove, that he was partially intoxicated. He could not have been wholly so, for the evidence is that he entered a window by putting a stick thereunder to hold it. Besides, there was no prayer and no assignment of error upon the ground that the prisoner was drunk.
The prayer, on the refusal of which the prisoner rests his defense, was that the court should “charge the jury that, before he could-be convicted of burglary in the first degree on the initial count of the bill, it would be necessary for the State to show an intent on his part to accomplish his purpose, notwithstanding any resistance made by Mrs. Allen.” This was refused, the court stating that “an intent generally to commit the felony was sufficient.” This was correct, upon all the precedents. There is no case, it is believed, on record that the charge thus prayed has ever been held necessary for any indictment for burglary with intent to ravish. The only case that has been cited to sustain the prayer for such charge is S. v. Massey, 86 N. C., 658, but that was not a charge of burglary, but of an assault with intent to commit rape. The charge here is not burglary with "attempt" to commit rape, but of burglary with an intent to do so. That is'a charge with a simple intent, and upon this evidence the jury found, and it would have been difficult for them, upon the uncontradicted testimony, to have found otherwise if they believed the evidence, than that the negro, entering burglariously, concealed himself under a white woman’s bed, did not have the intent to commit that crime.
*311Indeed, there-is no substantial denial of-the facts charged and proven as above by the State. It was not necessary that the bill should charge that the rape was accomplished. Indeed, if the facts satisfy the jury that he entered, as charged, with the intent to commit rape, it would not be - a defense that he had abandoned such intent after entering. Wherefore is it necessary to charge and prove that he intended to “persist in his intent, in spite of any opposition” ?
There is nothing in the nature of this crime that makes it desirable or advisable for the court to create and engraft a new technicality as a defense against the conviction upon the facts of this case. There is no evidence’that the prisoner knew that the husband was in the room. This may account for the boldness or rashness of his attempt. lie certainly did not expect to be arrested. He entered the house burglariously, and the evidence was sufficient to show the jury, if they believed it, that the entrance was made with the intent charged. The jury has so found.
The burglary was committed by entering the dwelling-house of another in the night-time with intent — not with the attempt — to ravish, and there is no evidence tending to show any lesser degree of offense which would have justified the jury in finding the prisoner guilty of a lesser offense.
This is not an indictment for an attempt to commit burglary, nor for an attempt to commit rape, but is an indictment, in the approved form, for the crime of burglary, alleging as an ingredient an intent to commit rape. The precedents require no more to be charged, and the evidence was sufficient, if believed, to justify the jury in finding such verdict. It was not necessary to charge or prove a greater degree than intent to commit rape, and there is no evidence in this record which required the judge to submit to the jury any lesser offense than that charged. If the testimony was true, the prisoner entered the house burglariously with the intent to commit the crime charged, and there is no evidence of any lesser offense to be submitted to the jury.
The prisoner assigned as error the exclusion of the answer of the witness Beasley to the following question: “Do you know James Allen’s mental condition on the day in question, and had you observed him before then?” The State objected. The witness said he had only observed him one time. The counsel for defendant proposed to prove by witness that the defendant was not of average intelligence, and on the day of this occurrence refused to take pay for three or four hours work, and that he did not consider him of average mental capacity. The exclusion of the answer to this question was correct. 8. v. Journegan, 185 N. C., 100. This was the first exception, and the second assignment was to the exclusion of the question whether the prisoner’s father and grandfather were not the same man.
*312Tbe prisoner also objected that, upon inquiry of tbe jury, tbe court instructed them that they could not find tbe prisoner guilty of burglary in tbe second degree. Tbis was correct. S. v. Johnston, 119 N. C., 883, citing S. v. Alston, 113 N. C., 666.
There was no error as to tbe judge’s statement in tbe charge of tbe jury, in tbe presence of counsel, that there was no contention as to tbe number of persons in tbe bouse at tbe time, nor as to tbe offense being committed in tbe night-time, nor was it error not to define tbe crime of larceny, an intent to commit which was charged in tbe second count, for tbe prisoner was tried and convicted on the first count.