State v. . Negro Jim
Supreme Court of North Carolina
From New-Hanover. The Defendant was indicted under the act of 1823 for making an assault “ in and upon the body of one M. J. a white female, with intent her the said M. J. then and there feloniously to ravish, and carnally know, &c.” In making up the Jury, the Counsel for the Defendant challenged for cause those Jurors who were not owners of slaves, which was overruled by the presiding Judge.
Read the full summary
From New-Hanover. The Defendant was indicted under the act of 1823 for making an assault “ in and upon the body of one M. J. a white female, with intent her the said M. J. then and there feloniously to ravish, and carnally know, &c.” In making up the Jury, the Counsel for the Defendant challenged for cause those Jurors who were not owners of slaves, which was overruled by the presiding Judge. After a verdict for the State, the Defendant's Counsel moved in arrest of judgment, because it was not charged in the indictment, that the offence was committed “ violently, forcibly and against the will…
1Opinion of the Court
In making up the jury the counsel for the defendant challenged for cause those jurors who were not owners of slaves, which was overruled by the presiding judge. After a verdict for the State the defendant's counsel moved in arrest of judgment because it was not charged in the indictment that the offense was committed "violently, forcibly, and against the will of the said M. J." His Honor, Judge Norwood, for this cause arrested the judgment, whereupon the solicitor prayed an appeal to this Court. Rape is the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will. These essential…
2Cited by10 opinions
- State v. . AllenSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1923
- State v. PrimesSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1969
- State v. CrawfordSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1963
- State v. Marsh.Supreme Court of North Carolina · 1903
- State v. . JohnsonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1946
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.