Scruggs v. State

Decision Date11 April 1891
Citation15 S.W. 1074
PartiesSCRUGGS v STATE.
CourtTennessee Supreme Court

Moore & Wells, for plaintiff in error. The Attorney General, for the State.

CALDWELL, J.

The plaintiff in error, John Scruggs, is under a 10 years' sentence for the abduction of Etta Carter, a girl 14 years of age, from the home and custody of her father, for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage. Though admitting that he took the girl 75 miles from her home without her father's consent, and that he cohabited with her and indulged in acts of sexual intercourse with her for several days, and until arrested for the offense, Scruggs defends principally on the ground that she was already a base and lewd woman, and therefore not a subject of the crime with which he is charged. With respect to her previous character several witnesses were examined before the jury, and in their testimony there was much conflict. Scruggs himself and another witness testified to acts of sexual intercourse with her before the time of the alleged abduction. She denied this testimony, and swore that her first act of this character was with Scruggs after the abduction. There is other evidence sustaining and in some degree impeaching her character for virtue, though only the two witnesses testify to acts of fornication. The story of Scruggs seems improbable on its face, and that of the other witness can hardly be credited at all.

With a view of further showing the character of the girl, defendant's counsel offered to prove in the court below that a certain man had sexual intercourse with her at her own solicitation, "soon after" the arrest of the defendant, and her return home. He offered to make this proof by the girl herself, by the man alleged to have committed the act with her, and by the woman at whose house it is said to have occurred. The attorney general objected to the evidence, and the objection was sustained. In holding the evidence incompetent, the court said that, if the girl "turned out to be a prostitute after she came back, the defendant could not avail himself of that fact if he had taken her off and debauched her prior thereto." It is now urged that this action of the trial judge is erroneous, upon two grounds: (1) Because it resulted in the exclusion of competent evidence; (2) because the language used by the judge was calculated to impress the jury that he believed the defendant guilty. There is no error here. Evidence of the habits of the girl after the alleged abduction, however lewd, could not in any appreciable degree disclose her previous character for virtue, or indicate his innocence of the crime charged, hence it was incompetent and irrelevant. Indeed, the natural tendency of his conduct, if guilty as charged, was to lead her into a life of shame. The language of the court furnishes its own vindication against the imputation that it was calculated to prejudice the minds of the jury against the defendant. It is as far from assuming that the defendant had in fact taken the girl off and debauched her as language could have been. It conveys no impression of the court's opinion either as to his guilt or his innocence, but is entirely impartial, as it should be.

Etta Carter's father and mother were both witnesses for the state, and on the cross-examination of each of them the defendant offered to prove that the mother gave birth to several illegitimate children before her marriage, and that Etta's half-sister, older than herself, was the mother of an illegitimate child. Objection being made by the state, the witnesses were not permitted to answer. In sustaining the objection the trial judge said, in the hearing of the jury: "That is not competent, and would prove nothing. Her mother and sister might have been base, lewd women, and yet this girl be entirely virtuous." This ruling and language were likewise excepted to by defendant, and are assigned as error. As in the other instance, the ruling was right, and the language used in giving a reason for it entirely proper.

In December after the alleged abduction in March, Etta gave birth to a child, which she testified was the fruit of her cohabitation with the defendant during...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT