State v. . Murray

Decided June 5, 1868

Supreme Court of North Carolina · decided 1868-06-05

Eape, tried before Barnes, J., at Spring Term 1868 of the Superior Court of StaNLY. The prosecutrix, one Jemima Motley, was introduced as a witness for the State, and proved all the facts necessary in law to constitute the offence. With the view of attacking her credibility, the prisoner’s counsel proposed to ask her if she had not been delivered of a bastard child, and if she had not had sexual intercourse with other men.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1868-06-05

How this case has been cited

Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently December 1975

6 state decisions

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Pearson, C. J.

¶1 “With a view of attacking her credibility, tbe prisoner’s counsel proposed to ask her if she bad not been delivered of a bastard child ? And if she bad not bad sexual intercourse with other men ?” Tbe Court held that tbe questions could not be asked.

¶2 There is error. We consider the point settled. State v. March, 1 Jon. 526; State v. Garrett, Bus. 357; State v. Patterson, 2 Ire. 346.

¶3 “ The prisoner was permitted to show, by various witnesses, that the said Jemima Motley bad been delivered of a bastard child, and that her character for chastity was bad.”

¶4 We do not think that this can have the effect of curing the error. The admission of an allegation in pleading is in some instances cured by verdict.' But an error committed by the Court can only be remedied by a venire de novo.

¶5 It is unnecessary to notice the other points made in the case.

¶6 This opinion will be certified, &c.

¶7 Per Curiam. Venire de novo.