State v. Cook

• Decision Date: 19 March 1885
• Citation: 22 N.W. 675,65 Iowa 560
• Parties: STATE v. COOK.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

65 Iowa 560

22 N.W. 675

STATE

v.COOK.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed March 19, 1885.

Appeal from Winneshiek district court.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for 15 years. He appeals.M. J. Carter and C. P. Brown, for appellant.

Smith McPherson, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ADAMS, J.

1. The prosecuting witness, Emily Barnum, testified that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her, against her will, on the third day of January, 1884. The defendant insists that there is no evidence tending to connect him with the offense charged, except the testimony of the prosecutrix. It may be conceded that the evidence set out in the abstract tends to corroborate the prosecutrix but very slightly, if at all; but the abstract does not purport to be an abstract of all the evidence, and we cannot assume that it is.

2. The evidence shows that on the third day of January, 1884, the prosecutrix and the defendant were living in the same house as members of the same family; that immediately after dinner they were left alone in the house; that while thus alone the defendant sat down in the prosecutrix's lap and commenced to take improper liberties with her; that soon afterwards they went into a bed-room, where the defendant took still greater liberties. Whether he had sexual intercourse with her at that time is not clearly shown. The prosecutrix testified at one time that he did. But the state does not claim that he did, and the prosecutrix, in another part of the testimony, showed that he did not effect penetration. The bed-room, it appears, adjoins the kitchen. While the prosecutrix and the defendant were on the bed in the bedroom, a neighbor by the name of Fox, who resided about 25 paces therefrom, came into the kitchen, and as he came in he stamped his feet. The defendant arose and went into the kitchen, and the prosecutrix soon followed him. She then went to a bed-room in the chamber. Fox soon left, and the defendant followed the prosecutrix to the chamber. Fox testified that he thinks that just as she left she slapped the defendant. She did not make any revelation as to what had transpired in the bed-room below, nor attempt to leave the house, nor call for help. She withdrew to a more retired part of the house, and to a room which contained a bed. She spread some quilts on the bed, and, according to her testimony, the defendant had sexual intercourse with her on the bed. Whether the intercourse was with her consent was an important question for the jury to determine. The burden was on the state to show that it was without her consent, and she testified to that effect.

As bearing upon the question of consent in the chamber, the defendant was allowed to introduce the testimony of a...