Court Opinion

ID: 9812531
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 22:40:30.523505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:25:05.376637
License: Public Domain

Olaek, C. J.,
concurs fully in all that is said by Brown, J., in his very clear and terse opinion in this case, 'and adds: It is proper that attention should he called to the following anomalous and extraordinary provision in Bev., 3360, under which this indictment is had: "Provided, that no conviction shall be had upon the unsupported testimony of any such married woman.” This is without any parallel in the laws of North Carolina, except in the similar provision in Bev., 3354, for “Seduction under promise of marriage,” which provides: “The unsupported testimony of the woman shall not be sufficient to convict.” In these two cases the witness summoned by the State steps upon the witness stand branded with the provision of law that the jury shall not believe her, even though, on their oaths, they do believe her, unless some one else swears to the same state of facts. There is no such provision discredit*710ing tbe woman when a witness on an indictment for rape or for an assault with intent, yet such provision would not have been more illogical or unjust than this.
Parties to civil actions, and defendants in criminal actions, were formerly disqualified to testify, but, when made competent by statute, there was no such provision branding them as unworthy of belief, as in this case. On the contrary, notwithstanding their interest, the court must tell the jury that if they believe their testimony they must give it the same weight as that of any- other witness. Even the unsupported testimony of an accomplice is sufficient to convict for any crime if the jury shall believe him. S. v. Jones, 176 N. C., 703; S. v. Barber, 113 N. C., 711. A convict is competent and entitled to exactly the same credit as any witness, if 'believed. Negroes were formerly incompetent, and some other classes of citizens. But now any witness who is competent to testify has the weight to be given to his testimony left entirely to the judgment of the jury, save and except women. There is no class discrimination in the administration of justice permitted, much less required, by our laws, in any other instance.
Tn these two eases, though the woman is ordinarily the most necessary witness, and goes to the stand at the call of the State, she is branded as unfit to be believed, and the jury are forbidden to give her testimony any weight whatever, unless some one else, of whatever character he may be, possibly a convict, shall testify to the same purport.
It must be an oversight that such class discrimination on the witness stand has been permitted to remain upon our statute book. It is a slur and a brand upon those who know more about the transaction to be investigated than any one else, except the defendant himself, and as to him, his testimony is not only not discredited, but if he is a witness in his own behalf, or offers other witnesses (or even his silence, if he offers no testimony), has such enhanced weight that he must be found not guilty unless the jury shall find him guilty “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Why this discrimination in a court of justice between the two sexes when it is absolutely unknown in any other instance or as to any other class under our laws ?