State v. Bowman, 61 S.E.2d 107 (N.C. 1950). · Go Syfert
Search
State v. Bowman, 61 S.E.2d 107 (N.C. 1950). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, 2013–2017 · 2 courts · …there is 'carnal knowledge' or 'sexual intercourse' in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male. ✓
103 citation events (27 in the last 25 years) across 9 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: State v. Fletcher (nc, 2017-12-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1951 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1951 1988 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (quoted) State v. Fletcher (2×)
N.C. · 2017 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence low
there is 'carnal knowledge' or 'sexual intercourse' in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Wilson (2×) also: Cited "see"
N.C. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
Bowman, 232 N.C. at 376 (rejecting a defendant’s evidentiary impossibility argument where the alleged conflict was a matter of credibility, not physical impossibility); Green, 295 N.C. at 248-49 (rejecting a purported evidentiary impossibility argument where the basis for the argument was the mental capacity and honesty of the witness rather than a conflict with physical facts or laws of nature); supra at footnote 7 and accompanying citations.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hoyle
N.C. Ct. App. · 2015 · confidence medium
In ruling on a motion to suppress, the court “does not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, or take into account any evidence contradicting them offered by the defense.” State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 109 (1950).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Morgan
N.C. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“There is ‘carnal knowledge’ or ‘sexual intercourse’ in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual organ of the male.” State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 375-76 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1950).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Romulus v. Romulus
N.C. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 375-76 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1950).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Frederick Beauregard
Tenn. Crim. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
App . 1974) (quoting State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 108 (N.C.1950) (citing State v. Monds, 130 N.C. 69 7 , 41 S.E .789; State v. Hargra ve, 65 N.C . 466; State v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7 ; Burdick: Law of Crime, Section 477; 44 Am Jur., Rape, Section 3; 52 C.J.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Poole v. State (2×)
Miss. · 2010 · confidence medium
Id. at 107. .
discussed Cited as authority (rule) James David Poole v. State of Mississippi (2×)
Miss. · 2009 · confidence medium
There is “carnal knowledge” or “sexual intercourse” in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the sexual 11 Goodson v. State, 566 So. 2d 1142 , 1148 n.12 (Miss. 1990). 12 Id. (quoting S. Jean Emans et al., Genital Findings in Sexually Abused, Symptomatic and Asymptomatic, Girls, 79 Pediatrics 778 (May 1987)). 13 State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374 , 61 S.E.2d 107 (1950). 14 Id. at 107. 10 organ of the male.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hyatt
N.C. · 2002 · confidence medium
Ed. 2d-, 70 U.S.L.W. 3741 (2002); State v. Bonney, 329 N.C. 61, 77 , 405 S.E.2d 145, 154 (1991); State v. Orr, 260 N.C. 177, 179 , 132 S.E.2d 334, 336 (1963); State v. Wood, 235 N.C. 636, 637-38 , 70 S.E.2d 665, 667 (1952); State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 108-09 (1950); State v. McLeod, 196 N.C. 542, 545 , 146 S.E. 409, 410 (1929).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) LP v. Natrona County Department of Public Assistance & Social Services
Wyo. · 1984 · confidence medium
G.S. § 14-23; State v. Monds, 130 N.C. 697 , 41 S.E. 789 ; State v. Hargrave, 65 N.C. 466 ; State v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7 ; Burdick: Law of Crime, section 477; 44 Am.Jur., Rape, section 3; 52 C.J., Rape, sections 23, 24.’ State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374 , 61 S.E.2d 107 ; State v. Jones, 249 N.C. 134 , 105 S.E.2d 513 .” See to the same effect Walker v. State, 197 Tenn. 452 , 273 S.W.2d 707 (1954), citing and quoting the North Carolina Supreme Court in State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374 , 61 S.E.2d 107, 108 (1950).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Fletcher
N.C. · 1981 · confidence medium
As stated by Justice Ervin in State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E. 2d 107, 109 (1950), “[i]n ruling on such motion, the Court does not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, or take into account any evidence contradicting them offered by the defense.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Ashford
N.C. · 1980 · confidence medium
As this Court stated in State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E. 2d 107, 108 (1950), The law did not require the complaining witness to use any particular form of words in stating that the defendant had carnal knowledge of her.
cited Cited as authority (rule) State v. Lester
N.C. · 1978 · confidence medium
Whether the testimony is true or false and what it proves if it be true are matters for the jury.” State v. Bowman, 232 N.C. 374, 376 , 61 S.E. 2d 107, 109 (1950).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
State
v.
Avery Bowman
4.
Supreme Court of North Carolina.
Sep 20, 1950.
61 S.E.2d 107
1950 N.C. LEXIS 538
Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Rhodes for the State. , J. U. Folger and. Fred Folger for the defendant.
ERviN.
Cited by 47 opinions  |  Published
1 passages pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 83%
Citer courts: Supreme Court of North Carolina (2)
ERviN, J.

The statutory felony of obtaining carnal knowledge of virtuous girls between twelve and sixteen years old is created by the following portion of the statute now codified as Gr.S. 14-26: “If any male person shall carnally know or abuse any female child, over twelve and under sixteen years of age, who has never before had sexual intercourse with any person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be fined or imprisoned in the discretion of the court.” This enactment is designed to protect chaste girls between the specified ages from predatory males who would rob them of their virtue.

Three essential ingredients must coexist to render a male person guilty of the statutory felony of obtaining carnal knowledge of a virtuous girl between the specified ages. They are: (1) The male person must have carnal knowledge of the girl; (2) the girl must be over twelve and under sixteen years of age; and (3) the girl must never before have had sexual intercourse with any person. S. v. Swindell, 189 N.C. 151, 126 S.E. 417. The terms “carnal knowledge” and “sexual intercourse” are synonymous. There is “carnal knowledge” or “sexual intercourse” in a legal sense if there is the slightest penetration of the sexual organ of the female by the[*376] sexual organ of the male. It is not necessary that the vagina be entered or that the hymen be ruptured; the entering of the vulva or labia is sufficient. G.S. 14-23; S. v. Monds, 130 N.C. 697, 41 S.E. 789; S. v. Hargrave, 65 N.C. 466; S. v. Storkey, 63 N.C. 7; Burdick: Law of Crime, section 477; 44 Am. Jur., Rape, section 3; 52 C.J., Rape, sections 23, 24.

The defendant puts his chief reliance upon his assignment of error based on the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion for judgment ■of nonsuit, which was interposed when the State rested its case and renewed after all the evidence was concluded. G.S. 15-173. His position ■on this phase of the controversy is twofold.

He asserts initially that his motion to nonsuit the action should have been allowed for want of evidence of sexual penetration. This contention is insupportable. The law did not require the complaining witness to use any particular form of words in stating that the defendant had carnal knowledge of her. S. v. Hodges, 61 N.C. 231. Her testimony that the ■defendant had “intercourse” with her and “raped” her under the circumstances delineated by her was sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that there was penetration of her private parts by the phallus of the defendant. Ballew v. State, 23 Ala. A. 274, 124 S. 123; S. v. Bailly, 29 S.D. 588, 137 N.W. 352. This being so, there was evidence in behalf of the prosecution tending to establish the coexistence of the three essential ingredients of the charge. S. v. Bryant, 228 N.C. 641, 46 S.E. 2d 847; S. v. Trippe, 222 N.C. 600, 24 S.E. 2d 340; S. v. Wyont, 218 N.C. 505, 11 S.E. 2d 473; S. v. Houpe, 207 N.C. 377, 177 S.E. 20.

The defendant insists secondarily, however, that the testimony of the State tending to show his guilt was incredible in character, and that the trial court ought to have nonsuited the action on the ground that the witnesses giving it were unworthy of belief. This argument misconceives the office of the statutory motion for a judgment of nonsuit in a criminal action. In ruling on such motion, the court does not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses for the prosecution, or take into account any evidence contradicting them offered by the defense. The court merely considers the testimony favorable to the State, assumes it to be true, and •determines its legal sufficiency to sustain the allegations of the indictment. Whether the testimony is true or false, and what it proves if it be true are matters for the jury. S. v. McLeod, 196 N.C. 542, 146 S.E. 409.

It necessarily follows that the ruling on the motion for judgment of nonsuit was correct.

None of the remaining assignments of error justify the award of a new trial. It was not competent for the defendant to impeach the veracity of the State’s witness Leona Dodson by evidence tending to show specific .■acts of misconduct by her. Hence, the testimony of the defendant’s[*377] witnesses, C. T. Barber and Mrs. Syble Long, was properly excluded. S. v. Shinn, 209 N.C. 22, 182 S.E. 721. When the instructions to the jury are construed as a whole, they do not merit the criticism that the court gave undue prominence to the contentions of the State. S. v. Wilcox, 213 N.C. 665, 197 S.E. 156.

There is in law

No error.