State v. Eisler

• Decision Date: 18 May 1909
• Citation: 220 Mo. 67,119 S.W. 423
• Parties: STATE v. EISLER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

119 S.W. 423

220 Mo. 67

STATE v. EISLER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 18, 1909.

1. RAPE (§ 64)—ASSESSMENT OF PUNISHMENT BY COURT.

Punishment was assessed in the discretion of the court, as required by the statute relative to carnally knowing a woman between the ages of 14 and 18 years, where the jury fixed the punishment, and the trial court approved of it and entered up judgment in accordance with the verdict.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1159)—APPEAL—REVIEW —CONFLICTING EVIDENCE.

A verdict of conviction on conflicting evidence will not be reviewed as to the evidence.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Moses N. Sale, Judge.

William Eisler appeals from a conviction. Affirmed.

This cause is brought to this court upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis convicting the defendant of the offense of carnally knowing one Mary Brinda, an unmarried female of previously chaste character, between the ages of 14 and 18 years. On the 9th of October, 1906, the assistant circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis filed an information, duly verified, with the clerk of the circuit court of the city of St. Louis, charging the defendant with carnally knowing one Mary Brinda, an unmarried female of previously chaste character, between the ages of 14 and 18 years. After the entry of a plea of not guilty the trial proceeded. The evidence developed at the trial upon the part of the state tended substantially to prove: That prosecutrix lived with her mother and stepfather at 1016 Geyer avenue, St. Louis, and was employed at the Standard Mills in said city; that, before she became acquainted personally with the defendant, he frequently stationed himself at Tenth and Julia streets, along which place she passed each evening in returning from her work; and that on these occasions he whistled at and flirted with her. About October 8, 1905, defendant made an engagement to meet her that evening at Twelfth and Soulard streets, and in accordance therewith they met and conversed about two hours, made an engagement to meet the following night, and separated. On the following evening they met, and, after talking and fondling hands for about two hours, at his request they sojourned to a dark hallway at Twelfth and Soulard streets, and about 30 minutes after entering same defendant asked prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him. After some persuasion on his part, she consented, and her deflowering then and there took place. He frequently thereafter met and went with her, and on one or two occasions they had a disagreement, but were soon thereafter reconciled, and the acts of intercourse continued at intervals until April, 1906, at which time he discarded her. On Labor Day following, she discovered that she was pregnant, and had been six months, and so reported to her mother. At the time of these improper relations, the prosecutrix was 16 years old, and defendant was 18 years old. Prosecutrix testified positively that no one except defendant had ever had intercourse with her, and at the time of her illicit conduct she was not aware of the significance or consequence thereof. Defendant admitted his intimacy with her when she, in the presence of defendant and other persons, stated her relations with him. Peter J. Reinhart, Emil Steismeyer, and Bertha Fedter all testified that they were close neighbors and had been acquainted with prosecutrix for several years, and that her general reputation for chastity was good prior to this trouble.

On the part of the defendant, there were numerous witnesses introduced, among them was Herman Miller, George Wertman, Rudolph Meter, and Minnie Rich, who testified that they had heard the prosecutrix indulge in profanity and tell what they termed "dirty" stories, had seen her drink beer, and that she frequented Swagler's dance hall, a place at which the conduct of some was not above...