Court Opinion

ID: 9589867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:49:45.315819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:11.692243
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice Bobbitt
dissenting.
In my opinion, defendant is entitled to a new trial because of the court’s refusal to submit assault with intent to commit rape as a permissible verdict.
An indictment for rape includes an assault with intent to commit rape. State v. Birckhead, 256 N.C. 494, 499, 124 S.E. *5602d 838, 843 (1962). “The necessity for instructing the jury as to an included crime of lesser degree than that charged arises when and only when there is evidence from which the jury could find that such included crime of lesser degree was committed. The ‘presence of such evidence is the determinative factor.” State v. Hicks, 241 N.C. 156, 159, 84 S.E. 2d 545, 547 (1954); State v. Carnes, 279 N.C. 549, 554, 184 S.E. 2d 235, 238 (1971), and cases cited.
Where the State’s evidence, if believed in its entirety, tends to establish all elements of the crime of rape, and the defendant, while admitting he had sexual intercourse with the prose-cutrix, testifies it was with her consent, is the court required to submit assault with intent to commit rape as a permissible verdict? This question was fully considered in State v. Williams, 185 N.C. 685, 116 S.E. 736 (1923), and answered, “Yes.” In Williams, it was held that the defendant was entitled to a new trial on account of the court’s failure to so instruct the jury and that the verdict of guilty of rape did not cure the error.
In State v. Green, 246 N.C. 717, 100 S.E. 2d 52 (1957), the State’s evidence tended to show the defendant, a married man, raped the prosecutrix, a sixteen-year-old girl. The defendant, while admitting he had sexual intercourse with the prose-cutrix, testified it was with her consent. The defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape and this Court found “No error.” Justice (later Chief Justice) Parker, speaking for the Court, said: “It would have been error for the court not to have charged the jury on the lesser offenses, as it did. S. v. Williams, 185 N.C. 685, 116 S.E. 736.”
The consent of the prosecutrix when the act of sexual intercourse takes place is a defense to the charge of rape. However, this would not preclude a finding that, earlier in their relationship, the defendant had assaulted the prosecutrix with the intent to gratify his passion on her person notwithstanding any resistance she might make. The jurors are the sole judges of the credibility of the witnesses; they may believe all, or a part, or none of what a witness has1 testified. When there is conflicting evidence as to what occurred between the prosecutrix and the defendant, it is proper and customary for the trial judge to so instruct the jury; and in such case it is required that the lesser included offense of assault with intent to commit rape be submitted.
*561Decisions in which the rule stated in the preceding paragraph has been applied include State v. Kiziah, 217 N.C. 399, 8 S.E. 2d 474 (1940); State v. Shull, 268 N.C. 209, 150 S.E. 2d 212 (1966); State v. Miller, 268 N.C. 532, 151 S.E. 2d 47 (1966). In each, the prosecutrix testified the defendant had sexual intercourse with her by force and against her will; the defendant testified he had sexual intercourse with the prose-cutrix with her consent.
In Kiziah, the defendant was indicted for rape. He was placed on trial for assault with intent to commit rape. The jury returned a verdict of guilty of assault on a female.
In Shull, the defendant was indicted for rape. He was placed on trial for assault with intent to commit rape or assault on a female as the evidence might warrant. The defendant was convicted of an assault with intent to commit rape.
In Miller, each of the five defendants was indicted for rape and placed on trial for rape. Each was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape. On appeal, the defendants assigned as error, inter alia, “that the court instructed the jury on assault with intent to commit rape when there was no evidence of an assault to commit rape.” The following are excerpts from the opinion of Justice Higgins:
(A) “The critical issue in this case is whether the acts of intercourse (which the witness and all defendants admitted) were by force and against the will of Ribbie Parham as she testified, or with her consent as each of the defendants testified. The jury heard the witnesses and observed their demeanor, and returned verdicts ‘guilty of assault with intent to commit rape.’ ” (B) “The court instructed the jury to consider five possible verdicts: (1) rape; (2) rape with a recommendation that punishment should be imprisonment for life; (3) assault with intent to commit rape; (4) assault on a female; (5) not guilty.” (C) “The court gave clear and explicit instructions as to the rules of law applicable to the facts as the jury might find them to be from the evidence. The charge was correct.”
The present case is distinguishable, as were Williams and Green, from cases in which the uncontradicted evidence shows the crime of rape was committed, e.g., State v. Jackson, 199 N.C. 321, 154 S.E. 402 (1930), where the defendant’s evidence related solely to an alibi; State v. Brown, 227 N.C. 383, 42 *562S.E. 2d 402 (1947), where the defendant’s evidence related solely to his plea of insanity; State v. Jones, 249 N.C. 134, 105 S.E. 2d 513 (1958), where the defendant offered no evidence.
The majority opinion cites as authority for the court’s refusal to submit assault with intent to commit rape our decisions in State v. Carter, 265 N.C. 626, 144 S.E. 2d 826 (1965); State v. Primes, 275 N.C. 61, 165 S.E. 2d 225 (1969); State v. McNeil, 277 N.C. 162, 176 S.E. 2d 732 (1970); State v. Murry, 277 N.C. 197, 176 S.E. 2d 738 (1970); State v. Smith, 201 N.C. 494, 160 S.E. 577 (1931); and State v. Lance, 166 N.C. 411, 81 S.E. 1092 (1914). In each, the defendant was convicted of rape; and in all except Primes and Lance the testimony of the prosecutrix as to what occurred was uncontradicted.
In Carter, where the prosecutrix was a nine-year-old girl, the defendant testified he was in no way involved and offered alibi evidence.
In Primes, the defendant took the stand and testified he had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix with her consent. The jury was instructed to say by their verdict whether they found the defendant “guilty of rape as charged in the bill of indictment; guilty of rape, with recommendation that his punishment be imprisonment for life in the State’s prison; guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape; or guilty of an assault upon a female, he being a male person above the age of eighteen years; or not guilty.”
In McNeil, the defendant did not testify or offer evidence.
In Murry, where the prosecutrix was an eleven-year-old girl, the defendant testified he was in no way involved and offered alibi evidence.
In Smith, there was no evidence in contradiction of the prosecutrix’s testimony except the defendant’s alibi.
In Lance, the defendant requested the court to charge that the jury might return any one of these verdicts: (1) guilty of rape; (2) guilty of assault with intent to commit rape; (3) guilty of assault with a deadly weapon; (4) guilty of simple assault; or (5) not guilty. The judge refused to submit whether the defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon or whether he was guilty of simple assault. He instructed the jury it might return any one of these verdicts: (1) guilty of rape; *563(2) guilty of assault with intent to commit rape; (3) guilty of an assault on a female by a male person above the age of eighteen years; or (4) not guilty. In a split decision (3 to 2), this Court approved the instructions given by the trial judge. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice Clark specifically approved the following instruction: “ ‘If the jury under the law and the evidence should find the prisoner guilty of rape, as charged, they will not consider or pass upon the question of his guilt of any lesser offense. But if they should not find him guilty of rape, then the jury will consider the question whether or not he be guilty of an assault with intent to commit rape,’ etc.” 166 N.C. at 414, 81 S.E. at 1093. Speaking for the minority, Justice (later Chief Justice) Hoke dissented on the ground that under the evidence the defendant was entitled to have submitted whether he was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon or of a simple assault.
In State v. Bentley, 223 N.C. 563, 27 S.E. 2d 738 (1943), the court did not submit whether the defendant was guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon; the jury returned the verdict of guilty of an assault with a deadly weapon on its own initiative and in the absence of any instruction that this was a permissible verdict.
Justice Sharp joins in this dissenting opinion.