TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

State v. Gooding

State v. John Gooding.

State v. Gooding, 146 S.E. 806 (N.C. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of North Carolina · State Highest Courts
Decided
March 6, 1929
Judges
PER CURIAM.
Citations
146 S.E. 806196 N.C. 7101929 N.C. LEXIS 80
Cited by 10

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Pee Cubiam.

The defendant at the close of the State’s evidence and at the close of all the evidence made a motion for judgment’ of nonsuit. O. S., 4643. This motion cannot be sustained.

The prosecutrix testified “that she was the wife of Tom Hill; that she went into the store of the defendant, John Gooding, to get some kerosene; that the wife and an 18-year-old daughter were in the kitchen, where she had gone and that she had her little child with her. This was all in the day time. That the defendant came in, and the first time *711 sbe knew be was there be grabbed ber by tbe arms from tbe back and beld ber so tight sbe bad to use all ber strength to release herself; that tbe defendant stated when sbe bad released herself that be just wanted to see bow ber arms felt.”

Tbe charge is not set out in tbe record; tbe presumption is that tbe court below correctly instructed tbe jury tbe law as to what constituted assault and battery and applied tbe law to tbe facts.

Any unlawful beating or other wrongful physical violence or constraint inflicted on a human being without bis or ber consent is a battery. Tbe evidence was sufficient to be submitted to tbe jury — tbe probative force was for them.

Tbe following question was asked tbe prosecuting witness, to which exception and assignment of error was duly made: “Q. Had be been to your bouse before? Answer: I have beard him say that be could bug and kiss any of tbe white women in tbe community, and that be did bug and kiss all of tbe other white women in tbe community.”

We could not say that tbe question was objectionable, but tbe answer seems not to be responsive to tbe question. It is well settled in this jurisdiction that defendant’s objection should have been accompanied by a motion to strike tbe objectionable statement from tbe record if be deemed it incompetent and prejudicial. If be desired to do so, be should have requested an instruction to tbe effect that tbe jury should not consider it as evidence.

Luttrell v. Hardin, 193 N. C., at p. 269. In tbe record we find No error.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 10 cases

View all citing references →
1940: 21945: 11951: 11966: 11969: 11972: 11973: 11976: 11977: 119402026peak 1940 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Covington226 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. 1976)
  2. State v. Mays35 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. 1945)
  3. State v. Higgins146 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. 1966)
  4. State v. Brannon67 S.E.2d 633 (N.C. 1951)
  5. State v. Smith168 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
  6. State v. Wilson192 S.E.2d 72 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)

Most recent

  1. State v. Cunningham238 S.E.2d 645 (N.C. Ct. App. 1977)
  2. State v. Covington226 S.E.2d 629 (N.C. 1976)
  3. State v. Holland201 S.E.2d 85 (N.C. Ct. App. 1973)
  4. State v. Wilson192 S.E.2d 72 (N.C. Ct. App. 1972)
  5. State v. Smith168 S.E.2d 494 (N.C. Ct. App. 1969)
  6. State v. Higgins146 S.E.2d 681 (N.C. 1966)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list