Tbe defendant was indicted and convicted upon a charge of carnally knowing аnd abusing Mary Lee Lucas, a female child over the age of twelve.and under the age of sixteen.
Upon the trial of this case the State was permitted, over the objection of the defendant, to exhibit to the jury the child of the prosecuting witness, of whiсh she had testified the defendant was the father. Whether this was competent in a eаse of this kind, and upon the evidence before the court, may be seriously questionеd. In our jurisdiction, as in most others, it is competent in bastardy cases where the issue is pаternity, but that is not the issue he're. The prosecuting witness detailed a story of illicit intercоurse lasting through a considerable period. Under her testimony the child could not havе'been conceived until after she had become sixteen years of age. Thе State contends that it is at least corroborative of the fact of illicit relаtions, which is, in turn, corroborative of the prosecuting witness as to earlier relatiоns, and that it also impeaches the defendant, who denied any such relations at аny time; and that it therefore cannot be excluded under a general objection.
S. v. Corriher,
In discharging the duties resting upon him under C. S., 564, the able presiding judge inadvertently instructed the jury as follows: “So, the Court instructs you, Gentlemen of the Jury, that if the State of North Carolina has satisfied you from evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about the 1st day of October, 1939, that the defendant, Ed. Isley, had sexual intercourse with the prоsecuting witness, Mary Lee Lucas, as the Court has defined sexual intercourse to be, аnd further find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time the dеfendant had sexual intercourse with her, if you do find beyond a reasonable doubt that hе had sexual intercourse with her, that she was over 12 years of age, and further find from the еvidence and beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time she had sexual interсourse with the defendant, if you find from the evidence and beyond a reasonable dоubt that he had sexual intercourse with her, that she had never before had sexual interсourse with any other person, then he would be guilty as charged in this bill of indictment, and it would be yоur duty to return a verdict of guilty.”
This, taken literally and applied to the evidence, would bе tantamount, to an instruction to convict, since it omitted reference to the mаximum age limit, and there was no doubt that the female, subject of the instruction, was over twelve. It is true the judge correctly stated the law elsewhere in explaining the statute, and that there may be some doubt whether the obviously inadvertent statement was, in a practical sense, prejudicial.
The Attorney-General argues that, taking the chargе contextually, there is no prejudicial error, since the jury was properly instructеd on this point elsewhere.
In re Ross,
On the other hand, the defendant expresses a doubt as to the ability of the jury to retain and collate everything the judge has said. It is pointed out, also, that the instruction bearing upon the statute, correctly stating the maximum age — sixteen years — beyond which conviction could not be had, was more or less abstract, while that given near the close of the charge, in which that essential element of the crime was omitted, was more concretely directed to the evidence аnd the verdict the jury might render upon it, and was more likely to be heeded. An erroneous instruction is not cured by the fact that the law is correctly charged
*216
elsewhere.
S. v. Morgan,
Considering the importаnce of the case and the impossibility of determining on which of the instructions the jury acted, we believe the ends of justice require that defendant have a new trial. It is so ordered.
New trial.