State v. Etheridge
North Carolina Supreme Court
319 N.C. 34, 352 S.E.2d 673 (1987)
- Written by Deanna Curl, JD
Facts
On April 10, 1985, Mr. Etheridge (defendant) drove his 12-year-old daughter to Bear Swamp, an isolated area of their county, and had vaginal intercourse with her. After the incident, Etheridge instructed his daughter not to tell anyone so that they did not get in trouble. Etheridge subsequently engaged in intercourse with his daughter on three other occasions. On April 28, 1985, Etheridge was home alone with his 13-year-old son when he directed his son upstairs and told him to remove his clothes. Etheridge’s son initially refused but complied after Etheridge told him to do it anyway. Etheridge then engaged in anal intercourse with his son and, after the incident, threatened to hurt his son if anyone found out about it. Etheridge’s son later told a friend about the incident, who then reported it to the Department of Social Services. Both of Etheridge’s children were removed from the home, and Etheridge was subsequently charged with sexual offense in the second degree. At trial, the evidence established that Etheridge had started sexually abusing his children when they were six and eight years old, but his son had not learned about sexual abuse until he saw a film about it in school. Etheridge was convicted in the trial court then appealed his conviction.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Martin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
