State v. . Massey
86 N.C. 658
N.C.
1882
Check Treatment
Ashe, J.

Thаt the defendant is guilty - of an assault, according to the testimony of the prosecutrix, therе can be no question; but we are of the opinion the evidence in the *660 case did nоt warrant jthe jury in convicting him of the intent charged, and that the court erred in not submitting to the jury the instruction asked by defendant.

We think the jury should have been instructed that there was no evidencе, or at least none reasonably sufficient, to maintain the charge against the defendant of an assault on the witness, with a felonious-intent to have carnal knowledge of hеr person by force and against her will. Such a charge would have bee:, substantially that asked for by defendant. Rut as the ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‍case was left to the jury without any instructions, they were at liberty tо infer that the evidence was sufficient to warrant them in finding the defendant guilty of the assault with intent. In this 'сonsists the error. Where a judge refuses to instruct the jury that- the evidence does not prove the offence charged in the indictment, it is good ground for exception.

In order to convict a defendant on the charge of an assault with intent to commit rape, thе evidence should show not only an assault, but that the defendant intended to gratify his passion оn the person of the woman, and that he intended to do so, at all events, notwithstanding any rеsistance on her part. Roscoe Cr. Ev., 31 0; Rex v. Lloyd, 7 C. & P., 318; Joice v. State of Georgia, 53 Ga. Rep., 50.

When the act of a person may reasоnably be attributed to two or more motives, the one criminal and the other not, the humanity оf our law will ascribe it to that which is not criminal. “ It is neither charity nor common sense nor law, to infer the worst intent which the facts will admit of. The reverse is the rule of justice and law. If the faсts will reasonably admit the inference of an intent, which though immoral is not criminal, we are bоund to infer that intent.” State v. Neely, 74 N. C, 425. Dissenting opinion. Every man is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is prоved, and it ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‍is a well established rule in criminal cases, that if there is any reasonable hypothesis upon which the *661 circumstances are consistent with the innocence of the party accused, the court, should instruct the jury to acquit, for the reason the proof fails to sustain the charge. The guilt of a person is not to be inferred because the faсts are consistent with his guilt, but they must be inconsistent with his innocence.

Even conceding that the defendant pursued the prosecuting witness with the intent of gratifying his lustful desires upon her, does it follow that hе intended to do so “forcibly and against her will ?” That is an essential element of the crime сharged, and must be proved. It must be established by evidence that does more than raise a mere suspicion; a conjecture or possibility, for “evidence which merely shows it possible for the fact in issue to be as alleged, ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‍or which raises a mere conjecture that it is so, is an insufficient foundation for a verdict, and should not be left to the jury.” Matthis v. Matthis, 3 Jones, 132; Sutton v. Madre, 2 Jones, 320; Wittkowsky v. Wasson, 71 N. C., 451: State v. Bryson, 82 N. C., 576.

There is no evidence in this case, in our' оpinion, from which a jury might reasonably come to the conclusion that the defendant intended to have carnal knowledge of the person of the prosecutrix, at all hazards and against her will. At most, the circumstances only raised a suspicion of his purposе, and therefore should not have been left to the consideration of the jury.

In the case of Com. v. Merrill, 14 Gray, 415, which was аn indictment for an assault with intent to commit rape, the court say: “ The nature of'the chаrge presupposes that the intent was not carried out. It is therefore necessаry that the acts and conduct of the ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‍prisoner should be shown to be such that there can be no reasonable doubt as to the criminal intent. If these acts and conduct are equivocal or equally consistent with the absence of the felonious intent charged *662 in the indictment, then it is clear that they are insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty.”

The Attorney General relied upon Neely’s ease. The opiniоn there, was delivered by the late Chief Justice, to whose eminent abilities and learning we are always disposed to yield a becoming deference; but it was a divided court; therе was a dissenting opinion filed by Mr. Justice RodmaN and concurred in by Mr. Justice Bynum, both highly distinguished for their learning and legal acumen ; and after a careful consideration of the different views оf the question presented by these eminent jurists, we feel constrained to differ from the majority of the court, and adopt the reasoning and conclusion of the dissenting opinion, as enunciating the correct principle applicable to the case.

A venire de novo must therefore be awarded the defendant. ‍‌‌‌​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌‌​​​‌​​‌‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌​​‍Let this be certified.

Error. Venire de novo.