Imágenes de páginas
[ocr errors]

$ 642. “Seduce and debauch."- Where the statutory words were “seduce and debauch any unmarried woman,” with no qualification as to her previous character, the majority of the Michigan court held that, if the defendant has already seduced the complainant under a promise of marriage, then she yields to his embraces under a fresh promise, but for which she would not yield, this subsequent act makes him indictable, though the earlier is barred by the statute of limitations. Said Christiancy, J.: “While we express no opinion as to a female who is shown to be unchaste with other men, we think all that is necessary in a case like the present, where there is no such evidence, is that her personal character should be such as to satisfy the jury that she would not have yielded in the particular case without the express promise of marriage. To require any higher standard of virtue would be to nullify the statute, by making seduction impossible in any case, as well in reference to the first as to any subsequent act of intercourse.” 1

$ 642a. “ Procure to have," etc.- Under a statute which makes indictable one who “procures any female to have illicit carnal connection with any man,” the offense is not committed by a male person who merely seduces a woman into connection with himself. The procurement must be to have connection with another. $ 613, Distinguished from rape.- In rape, the copulation

, must be effected by force; 3 in the present offense, by seductive arts. Therefore a rape cannot be also a seduction. And it

S. v. Gibson, 111 Mo. 92, 19 S. W. R. 27 Conn. 319. [See S. v. King, 9 S. D. 980, held that taking a girl under age, 628, 70 N. W. R. 1046; S. v. Marshall, etc., for a single occasion, would sup 137 Mo. 463, 39 S. W. R. 63.] port the charge, but that case was 2 P. v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9; (S. v. overruled in S. v. Wilkinson, 121 Mo. Brow, 64 N. H. 577, 15 Atl. R. 216. 485, 26 S. W. R. 366. An indictment But not necessarily with a particular against three men charging them person other than defendant. Stewith having taken a girl, etc., for the vens v. S., 112 Ind. 433, 14 N. E. R. purpose of concubinage is fatally de- 251. And the offense is not comfective. She could not be the con- mitted if the procuring is for one occubine of all three. S. v. Gibson, 111 casion only. Haygood v. S., 98 Ala. Mo. 92, 19 S. W. R. 980.]

61, 13 S. R. 325.] 1 P. v. Millspaugh, 11 Mich. 278, 283. 3 Crim. Law, II, SS 1115, 1120, 1121. And see P. v. Clark, 33 Mich. 112; P. v. 4 Ante, S 640. Brewer, 27 Mich. 134; S. v. Jones, 16 5 S. v. Lewis, 48 Iowa, 578, 579, (30 Kan. 608; P. v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9; S. Am. R. 407;] S. v. Kingsley, 39 Iowa, v. Groome, 10 Iowa, 308. As to the 439. Connecticut statute, see S. v. Bierce,

was even held to be error to charge the jury that the crime was seduction although the woman “consented partly through fear and partly because the defendant hurt her.” But

Seduction - Fornication - Adultery - Bastardy.— There is no antagonism between seduction and fornication, adultery or bastardy; so that, on an indictment for the first, there may be a conviction for any one of the others, if included within the allegation.


$ 644. Course of discussion.- We shall consider, first, the indictment; secondly, the evidence.

First. The indictment:

Taking girl under sixteen.— It is a good indictment upon the modern English statute before recited' to say that the defendant, at a time and place stated, unlawfully did take one C. out of the possession and against the will of B., her father, she the said C. being then and there an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen years, to wit, of the age of fifteen years. The particular allegation of being an unmarried girl” is said by Archbold to be sufficient."

$ 645. Words of statute.-In general it is sufficient to charge this offense in the words of the statute, adding the time and place and the names of persons.?

$ 646. “Purpose of prostitution.”- Where the statute requires the taking to be "for the purpose of prostitution,” 8 this element of the offense must be alleged. It is inadequate to

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Croghan v. S., 22 Wis. 444, 445. Timmins, Bell, C. C. 276, 8 Cox, C. C. And see Furman v. Applegate, 3 Zab. 401. 28.

Referring to Rex v. Moore, 2 Lev. 2 Wood v. S., 48 Ga. 192, [15 Am. R. 179; Rex v. Boyall, 2 Bur. 832. 664;] Hopper v. S., 54 Ga. 389; Nich- 6 S. v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112; (S. v. olson v. Com., 91 Pa. St. 390.

Whalen, 98 Iowa, 662, 68 N. W. R. 3 Ante, S 631.

554; P. v. Fowler, 88 Cal. 136, 25 Pac. 4 Archb. Crim. Pl. & Ev. (10th Lond. R. 110; Cargill v. Com. (Ky.), 13 S. W. ed.) 477. Such was the form in Reg. R. 916; S. v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 11 S. 1. Robins, 1 Car. & K. 456; Reg. v. W. R. 732.] Biswell, 2 Cox, C. C. 279. For other 7 West v. S., 1 Wis. 209. (See S. v. forms on this statute, see Reg. v. Conkright, 58 Iowa, 338, 12 N. W. R. Hopkins, Car. & M. 254; Reg. v. 283.] Meadows, 1 Car. & K. 399; Reg. v. 8 Ante, 8 611


[ocr errors]

say “for the purpose of having illicit sexual intercourse with her,”? which, we have seen,” is a different thing. But,

Promise of marriage." - Where the statutory words were “under promise of marriage,” it was adjudged not ill to say

in the indictment "by means of a promise of marriage.”'

$ 647. “ Previous chaste character.” — If the statute requires the female to be of “previous chaste character," the indictment must aver that at the time of the seduction she was so. And perhaps, in some cases, it must where these words are not in the statute. In Indiana, an indictment to the effect that the defendant had illicit carnal intercourse with one C., a female of good repute for chastity, and below the age of twenty-one years, under a promise of marriage made by him to her, was held to be sufficient.?

$ 648. Secondly. The evidence:

Previous chaste character.– Where the woman's previous chaste character is an element in the offense and it must be alleged, it must also be passed upon by the jury. But —

Presumption of chastity.— Some courts deem the presumption of her chastity sufficient to establish it until evidence appears to the contrary. Others hold that, since also the defendant is presumed to be innocent," and so the two presumptions are in conflict, some evidence of her chastity must be

[ocr errors]


1 Osborn v. S., 52 Ind. 526; [S. v. 196, 42 N. W. R. 933; S. v. Lockerby, Terrill, 76 Iowa, 149, 4 N. W. R. 128.] 50 Minn. 363, 52 N. W. R. 958, 36 Am. 2 Ante, $ 641.

St. R. 656.) 3 [As to sufficiency of indictment 10 S. v. Wells, 48 Iowa, 671; S. v. under statute against “defiling fe- Higdon, 32 Iowa, 262; v. Shean, 32 male ward by guardian (ante, Iowa, 88; Andre v. S., 5 Iowa, 389, $ 637a), see S. v. Buster, 90 Mo. 514, 2 [68 Am. D. 708;) Boak v. S., 5 Iowa, S. W. R. 834; S. v. Sipe, 38 Kan. 201, 430; [Smith v. S., 118 Ala. 117, 24 16 Pac. R. 257.]

S. R. 55; Polk v. S., 40 Ark. 482, 48 4 Steinhouse v. S., 47 Ind. 17. (See Am. R. 17; McTyier v. S., 91 Ga. 254, S. v. Eckler, 106 Mo. 585, 17 S. W. R. 18 S. E. R. 140; Bradshaw v. P., 153 814, 27 Am. St. R. 372.]

Ill. 156, 38 N. E. R. 652; S. v. Hemm, 5 Ante, S 639.

82 Iowa, 609, 48 N. W. R. 971; S. v. 6 P. v. Roderigas, 49 Cal. 9. Com. Burns (Iowa), 78 N. W. R. 681; Ferpare S. v. Jones, 16 Kan. 608: [P. v. guson v. S., 71 Miss. 805, 15 S. R. 66, Wallace, 109 Cal. 611, 42 Pac. R. 159.] 42 Am. St. R. 492; S. v. McClintic, 73 ? S. v. Stogdel, 13 Ind. 565.

Iowa, 663, 35 N. W. R. 696; Barker v. 8 Ante, SS 639, 647.

Com., 90 Va. 820, 20. S. E. R. 776; 9 S. v. Carron, 18 Iowa, 372, 376, [87 Mills v. Com., 93 Va. 815, 22 8. E. R. Am. Q. 401; S. v. Gates, 27 Minn. 52, 863; Flick v. Com. (Va.), 34 S. E. R. 39.] PN. W. R. 404; S. v. Wenz, 41 Minn. 11 Crim. Pro., I, SS 1103-1106.

brought forward in the first instance. This conclusion seems better to accord with the legal analogies and reasons than the other; while yet ordinarily such evidence can in the nature of things be only slight and circumstantial. If the woman is a witness, she may testify to her previous virtue.?

$ 649, Proving woman unchaste.- Similar methods to those explained in the next chapter for proving adultery may be resorted to on this issue. Wanton and indiscreet conduct, for example, may be shown. If she is a witness, she may be asked, on cross-examination, whether she has not used indecent language with other men than the defendant, and been found in bed with them. But it has been held that improper conduct eight years before the alleged seduction, when she was only fourteen years old, is too remote, and it allows too little for the influence of maturer years and probable reformation.' We shall see that, in adultery, by the better opinion, libidinous conduct subsequent to the act charged, as well as before, may be shown in aid of the proofs of such act. But, in this offense, on the issue of a previous chastity, the reasons are different. Libidinous conduct after the seduction may be as well traceable to it as to previous unchastity; hence it is not admissible.?

$ 650. Supporting prosecuting witness.- In one case a witness for the defendant testified that, on two occasions prior to the seduction charged, he had committed the unlawful act with the woman. And by the majority of the court it was held that the state was properly permitted, in rebuttal of this

I West v. S., 1 Wis. 209. See also N. W. R. 562; S. v. Bell, 79 Iowa, 117, Safford v. P., 1 Park. Cr. 474; [Zabris. 44 N. W. R. 244; S. v. Curran, 51 kie v. S., 43 N. J. L. 640, 39 Am. R. Iowa, 112, 49 N. W. R. 1006; S. v. 610; Oliver v. Com., 101 Pa. St. 215, Baldoser, 88 Iowa, 55, 55 N. W. R. 97.) 47 Am. R. 704; S. v. McCaskey, 104 4 S. v. Sutherland, 30 Iowa, 570. Mo. 644, 16 S. W. R. 511; S. v. Eckler, OS. v. Dunn, 53 Iowa, 526, 527; 106 Mo. 585, 17 S. W. R. 814, 27 Am. [Suther v. S., 118 Ala. 88, 24 S. R. 43, St. R. 372; S. v. Thornton, 108 Mo. 69 Am. St. R. 52; P. v. Kehoe, 123 610, 18 S. W. R. 841.)

Cal. 224, 55 Pac. R. 911; S. v. Knutson, 2 Kenyon v. P., 26 N. Y. 203, [84 91 Iowa, 499, 60 N. W. R. 129; S. v. Am. D. 177.]

Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151, 51 Am. R. 234.] 3 S. v. Bell, 49 Iowa, 440; P. v. Mc- 6 Post, SS 679-681. Ardle, 5 Park. Cr. 180; (S. v. Patter- 7 S. v. Wells, 48 Iowa, 671; Mann v. son, 88 Mo. 88, 57 Am. R. 374; S. v. S., 34 Ga. 1, 5; (S. v. Abegglan, 103 Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151, 51 Am. R. 234; Iowa, 50, 72 N. W. R. 305. But see S. O'Neill v. S., 85 Ga. 383, 11 S. E. R. v. Robertson, 121 N. C. 551, 28 S. E. 856; S. v. Clemons, 78 Iowa, 123, 42 R. 59.]


evidence, to introduce “many witnesses, who proved that the prosecutrix was a young woman of good character for chastity, was correct and modest in her deportment, and that, until the occurrence with the defendant, she was considered a virtuous girl.” “The fact,” said Beck, J., “that a life of purity such as will secure and sustain a reputation for virtue renders in a degree charges of lewdness and sexual indulgence improbable is the ground upon which the evidence objected to was admitted. It is in accord with all experience, and not in conflict with legal principles.” 1

$ 650a. Further of the woman as witness. — The admitting of the injured woman to testify for the state accords with general rule. But some of our statutes, in diverse terms, require her to be corroborated by other evidence, to justify a conviction. For decisions on them, the reader is referred to the note.

$ 651. Whole issue.- The whole issue must be proved. It will vary with the statutes; as, under some, the defendant must be shown to be a married man. Under the greater number

" there must be evidence of seduction and carnal intercourse.

[ocr errors]

18. v. Shean, 32 Iowa, 88, 91, 92; J. L. 800; S. v. Hayes, 105 Iowa, 82, 74 (Carroll v. S., 74 Miss. 688, 22 S. R. 295, N. W. R. 757; S. v. Arrah, 55 Iowa, 60 Am. St. R. 539; S. v. Bryan, 34 258, 7 N. W. R. 601. Corroboration Kan. 63, 8 Pac. R. 260. And see S. v. is not necessary in Missouri (S. v. Clark, 9 Oreg. 406; P. v. Krusick, 93 Stone, 106 Mo. 1, 16 S. W. R. 890), exCal. 74, 28 Pac. R. 794; Suther v. S., cept as to promise of marriage, when 118 Ala. 88, 24 S. R. 43.]

that is an element of the offense. S. Crim. Pro., I, § 1138; Bowers v. v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423.] S., 29 Ohio St. 542. But see Cole v. 4 For a pretty full case, see ArmS., 40 Tex. 147.

strong v. P., 70 N. Y. 38. And see S. 3 Crandall v. P., 2 Lans. 309; Kenyon v. Haven, 43 Iowa, 181. v. P., 26 N. Y. 203, [84 Am. D. 177;] S. v. 5 West v. S., 1 Wis. 209; [Davis v. Kingsley, 39 Iowa, 439; S. v. Painter, Com., 98 Ky. 708, 34 S. W. R. 699; 50 Iowa, 317; S. v. Smith, 54 Iowa, Norton v. S., 72 Miss. 128, 16 S. R. 264, 743; Boyce v. P., 55 N. Y. 644; Arm- 18 S. R. 916, 48 Am. St. R. 538; Luckie strong v. P., 70 N. Y. 38; S. v. Curran, v. S., 33 Tex. Cr. R. 562, 28 S. W. R. 51 Iowa, 112; S. v. Timmens, 4 Minn. 533; S. v. Bryan, 34 Kan. 63, 8 Pac. R. 325; (Hart v. 8., 117 Ala. 183, 23 S. R. 260. Prosecuting witness must be 43; Cunningham v. S., 73 Ala. 51; shown to be unmarried. Mesa v. S., Wilson v. S., 73 Ala. 527; S. v. Keith, 17 Tex. Ap. 395; S. v. Wheeler, 108 47 Minn. 559, 50 N. W. R. 691; P. v. Mo. 658, 18 S. W. R. 924; P. v. KruPlath, 100 N. Y. 590, 3 N. E. R. 790, 53 sick, 93 Cal. 74, 28 Pac. R. 794. See Am. R. 236; P. v. Wade, 118 Cal. 672, S. v. Heatherton, 60 Iowa, 175, 14 N. 50 Pac. R. 841; Rice v. Com., 100 Pa. W. R. 230; Bailey v. S., 36 Tex. Cr. R. St. 28; Zabriskie v. S., 43 N. J. L. 640, 44, 38 S. W. R. 185.] 39 Am. R. 610; S. v. Bowman, 45 N. 6 S. v. Curran, 51 Iowa, 112; Lewis

« AnteriorContinuar »