13 N.E. 100 (Ind. 1887), 13,898, Coleman v. State
|Citation:||13 N.E. 100, 111 Ind. 563|
|Opinion Judge:||Mitchell, J.|
|Party Name:||Coleman v. The State|
|Attorney:||E. P. Hammond, M. F. Chilcote and W. B. Austin, for appellant. L. T. Michener, Attorney General, R. W. Marshall, Prosecuting Attorney, and J. H. Gillett, for the State.|
|Case Date:||September 27, 1887|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Indiana|
From the Jasper Circuit Court.
The judgment is affirmed, with costs.
[111 Ind. 564]
Coleman was tried in the Jasper Circuit Court and sentenced to two years imprisonment for having feloniously assaulted one Ida Ream, with intent to commit a rape upon her person.
The error assigned brings before us the propriety of the ruling of the court in overruling the appellant's motion for a new trial.
As the learned counsel for the appellant suggest, the case is somewhat peculiar, in that the person upon whom the injury is alleged to have been committed does not appear to have been examined as a witness. It is, however, beyond successful dispute that the verdict is well supported by other competent evidence. It may be inferred from the record that the State sought, without success, to obtain a continuance on account of the absence of the prosecutrix.
That the appellant without right invaded the room in which the prosecutrix was pursuing her work, as chambermaid, and that he made an indecent proposal to, and perpetrated an unlawful assault upon her, is scarcely denied. There was testimony to the effect that he was seen violently struggling with the girl, thrusting one hand under her garments, the other arm about her neck, while with his hand he tried to cover her mouth, so as to prevent her from making outcry. Her resistance and outcries attracted the attention of others, one of whom witnessed the parties in the struggle, and whose presence, when observed, caused the appellant to desist. The girl left the room crying. That the appellant's purposes in intruding into the room were lecherous is not denied, and it is not at all surprising that the jury refused to adopt the theory that what he did was merely with a view to persuade the prosecutrix to yield to his lustful passion.
was an unlawful assault upon the prosecutrix, who resisted from the beginning and made outcry. The jury drew the inference, as well they might from the evidence, that the assault was made with the felonious intent to have [111 Ind. 565] carnal knowledge of the girl by force and against her will, if it became necessary to the accomplishment of his purpose that force should be employed. We can not disturb the finding on the evidence.
It appears from a bill of exceptions, that in making the opening statement of the case the prosecutor used the following language in addressing the jury: "You should watch the evidence closely. We do not know that the defendant will...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP