Legal Opinion

State v. . Smith

Supreme Court of North Carolina

Decided May 22, 1940PublishedCited by 7 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtStacy, C. J.

The sufficiency of the evidence to carry the case to the jury is challenged only on one point, i.e., whether the promise of marriage rests alone on the “unsupported testimony of the woman.” The time of the seduction is fixed at about the middle of March, 1939. The defendant says it took place in April. In two letters to the prosecutrix, one dated 18 May, 1939, the other 21 -June, 1939, the defendant admitted the promise. In the last letter he speaks of the promise as having been made “long time ago.” This, taken with the other evidence in the ease, would seem to meet the requirements of the…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. State v. . HarrisonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  2. State v. . MaloneeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1910
  3. State v. . RaynorSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1907
  4. State v. . FulcherSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918
  5. State v. . CookeSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1918

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by7 opinions

  1. State v. . McKinnonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  2. State v. . HairstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  3. State v. . ManningSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1942
  4. State v. McKinnonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943
  5. State v. HairstonSupreme Court of North Carolina · 1943

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API