State v. Evans

Decision Date01 March 1916
Docket NumberNo. 18742.,18742.
Citation183 S.W. 1059,267 Mo. 163
PartiesSTATE v. EVANS.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Criminal Court, Buchanan County; Thomas F. Ryan, Judge.

Homer Evans was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

G. L. Zwick, of St. Joseph, for appellant. John T. Barker, Atty. Gen. (Lewis H. Cook, of Jefferson City, of counsel), for the State.

BLAIR, J.

In the circuit court of Buchanan county, Homer Evans was convicted of seducing Ruby Jeffries under promise of marriage, sentenced to 3 years in the penitentiary, and has appealed. Prosecutrix fixes the date of the first illicit act as November 24, 1912, and testifies the only other instance of the kind was upon December 14th of the same year. She was born November 6, 1892, and is one year younger than appellant. She lived with her parents, and, a quarter of a mile away, appellant lived with his sisters and widowed mother, near Saxton, Mo. The two were reared thus near each other and attended the same public school for some time. Prosecutrix at the age of 16 or 17 began to attend the high school at St. Joseph, six miles from her home, and boarded there with her aunt. She attended school at St. Joseph 3 years.

There is no direct evidence tending to corroborate prosecutrix as to a promise of marriage, and she, herself, does not testify to a formal proposal of marriage and a like acceptance by her. She testified she attended school with appellant and "always went with him," but was not allowed to "keep company with him," until she was 18, which was November 6, 1910; that while she was in school in St. Joseph, appellant worked there and would meet her at the train when she came from home, and that he took her to church sometimes, but that she was not allowed to go to any other places because she was in school; that in 1910, at appellant's request, she promised to "go with him after she was 18," and "go with no one else," except when her father and mother wanted her to do so, "only when it was necessary." She testified concerning appellant that:

"When we were going to school, he said we would be married some day and how nice it would be when I was old enough, and we would not be married now, but go together and have a good time, for when we were married we would have to settle down and think of something else."

This last was prior to 1910. As to what occurred upon the occasion on which she, on the trial, testified they became engaged in August, 1911, she said:

"In August, 1911, we had gone to church at Walnut Grove and coming home he was telling me, you should consider yourself engaged now, and not go with any one else, and I promised him I would not go with any one else if I could avoid it. I never went with any one else only when it was necessary. So we were engaged the first Sunday in August, 1911."

And she continued, "So we went together all the time;" and she follows this by testimony that appellant began to make improper advances in August, 1912, assuring her "it was no harm" and that they "would get married if anything happened." She testifies she repulsed appellant, but the next day he approached her again, and after that broached the matter every time she was with him. On being further questioned for the state, she said appellant argued there was no impropriety in what he asked, since they were to be married, and said that "if anything happened" they would be married right away, otherwise they would put it off until they "were better fixed." Upon November 24, 1912, she accompanied appellant to a place near St. Joseph and for a time occupied a room with him and submitted to his desires. She testifies she protested vehemently against going to the place and against the act itself, but also testifies she aided appellant in removing her clothing, corset, and shoes, preparatory to the illicit act. She testified at the preliminary that she attended to these details herself, but says she was nervous then and was mistaken, to the extent indicated. She says that appellant on this occasion made the same arguments he had unsuccessfully employed before, as above set forth. Of the visit to the same place on December 14, 1912, she says appellant "made her go," despite her strong opposition; that she then told him she would never go to town with him again, and that she never did so.

On the preliminary examination in August, 1913, prosecutrix testified the engagement to marry was entered into after wheat harvest and about threshing time in 1912, but before November 24, 1912. On the trial she attributed this discrepancy to the same cause she assigned for that mentioned above.

On cross-examination she testified she told no one of her engagement to marry appellant and knew of no one appellant had told; that appellant did not ask her parents for her hand, and that she did not tell them of her engagement because she "was afraid to"; that appellant gave her no engagement ring, but that he offered to procure one, which offer she says she declined because she feared her parents, if they saw the ring, would put an end to her association with appellant.

To bring out the relation between the two she was asked how often appellant was at her home after she became 18 and prior to the date on which she testified her ruin was accomplished, November 24, 1912. To this she replied:

"Two or three times a week and maybe more. He would come up and play cards with us, and croquet, and sometimes he took lunch with us, and whenever I had company I always invited him. Q. How frequently were you together? A. I saw him almost every day. Q. At those times what would be the train of his conversation about your relations with each other? A. He would tell me how he loved me. (Objection.) Q. State what passed between you and defendant at these meetings. A. He would tell me how nice it would be when we got married and how much he thought of me and how much I thought of him."

She admitted going out in company with other young men several times after August, 1911, and during October, November, and December, 1912, and that she broke a social engagement with another young man in order to accompany appellant to St. Joseph on the occasion of the second visit to "Alex's," December 14, 1912.

The father of prosecutrix testified, in effect, that appellant's attentions to his daughter began in 1910 or 1911, but added that appellant had "always gone with" her since the two went to school together. He was permitted to state that appellant treated prosecutrix "like a sweetheart," and that "he seemed to think a lot of her." He testified he saw the two in each other's company "two or three times a week or more" at his home, adding, "If she had company from the city, or anywhere, she would invite him over." He said appellant would take prosecutrix out in his buggy or automobile "to different places and down to his sisters"; that prosecutrix "did not seem to care for any other company and wouldn't go with any one else;" that "she would turn everybody down for him. It didn't please me, but I seen she thought so much of him and thought I would have to let her have her own way about it."

One other witness, who lived in the vicinity of Saxton, testified she "believed, * * * if she remembered right," that appellant escorted prosecutrix to a party at witness' home "one evening." When this occurred does not appear.

The mother, brother, and grandfather of prosecutrix testified in the case, but neither of them testified or attempted to testify to any circumstance tending to show that the relations between appellant and prosecutrix indicated an engagement to marry. The same thing is true of the numerous other witnesses from the neighborhood who testified in the case.

There is no pretense any date for a wedding was ever set or that any preparations of any kind were ever made by prosecutrix or her family such as usually indicate an approaching wedding. There was no evidence of any gifts of any kind made by one to the other.

The state offered in evidence a card which prosecutrix testified she received through the mail. It is a postal card, mailed some time in 1909. On one side appears the then address of prosecutrix, in St. Joseph, where she was in school, and the initials "H. L. E." Prosecutrix testified the handwriting was that of appellant. The other side of the card bears a picture of a gentleman mailing a card or letter and, in one corner, the printed words "To My Wife." This card was received by prosecutrix 3 years before the time the alleged seduction occurred, and nearly 2 years prior to August, 1911, the date she became engaged to appellant, according to her testimony.

In this connection, however, prosecutrix was asked whether she and appellant were engaged when she received the card. An objection was made, and then she was asked to state "what understanding, if any," she had with defendant at the time she received the card. She answered:

"When I was going to school he told me not to go with any one else and that we intended to be married and that when I was 18 we would be engaged. I was 18 in 1910 (November 6th). We had always thought lots of one another and we always talked about when we got old enough to go together."

On cross-examination prosecutrix testified she received the card in 1909, but was not engaged to appellant until August, 1911. Appellant denied addressing or mailing the card, and said it was done by a kinsman who placed his (appellant's) initials on it as a joke. No other card and no letters or other writings of any sort, sent or received by appellant, were offered or mentioned in evidence.

One Helsel testified he knew and lived near the principals, and that, after gossip had gotten well under way, about the 1st of August, 1913, he jestingly asked appellant "how his boy was"; that appellant said, "All right," and asked witness, "What would you do if you were in my place?" Witness said he replied, "I would have...

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