Mills v. Commonwealth.1

• Decision Date: 19 September 1895
• Citation: 93 Va. 815,22 S.E. 863
• Parties: MILLS. v. COMMONWEALTH.1
• Court: Virginia Supreme Court

22 S.E. 863

93 Va. 815

MILLS.

v.COMMONWEALTH.¹

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Sept. 19, 1895.

Seduction — Corroborating Evidence — Presumption of Chastity.

1. Upon a trial for seduction under promise of marriage, an instruction that the facts of the promise of marriage and the seduction must be proved by some "corroborating" evidence in addition to that of the woman, to support a conviction, is proper.

2. The additional evidence required to sustain a conviction of seduction under promise of marriage must be such as does not emanate from the mouth of the seduced woman, and must not rest wholly upon her credibility, and must be such as strengthens and corroborates her testimony.

3. The words of the statute, "any unmarried female of previous chaste character, " refer to those who have preserved their chastity and kept their persons from actual defilement.

4. The chastity of the prosecutrix is presumed, and the burden of impeaching it lies on the accused.

5. Without reviewing the evidence, the court holds that there is no corroborating evidence to sustain the prosecutrix.

Error to corporation court of Danville; A. m. Aiken, Judge.

Sydney D. Mills was found guilty of seduction of Berta Puryear, under promise of marriage, and brings error. Reversed.

Berkley & Harrison, for plaintiff in error.

R. Taylor Scott, Atty. Gen., for the Commonwealth.

KEITH, P. S. D. Mills was indicted in the corporation court of the city of Danville, at its June term, 1895, for seducing, under promise of marriage, Berta Puryear, a female of previous chaste character. Upon this indictment he was subsequently tried, found guilty, and sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary for the period of two years. To this judgment he obtained a writ of error from one of the judges of this court.

The plaintiff in error asked for six instructions, the first three of which were granted as asked for, and need not, therefore, be further considered.

The fourth instruction as asked for was in the following words: "That the facts of the promise of marriage and the seduction cannot be proved by the unsupported testimony of the said Berta Puryear, but there must be some independent evidence in addition to hers to support the said facts of the promise of marriage and the seduction." The corporation court struck out the word "independent, " and substituted the word "corroborating, " so as to make the latter clause of the instruction read: "But there must be some corroborating evidence in addition to hers to support said facts of the promise of marriage and the seduction." The refusal of the court to give this instruction as asked for, and the giving of it in its changed form, are made the subjects of the plaintiff in error's first bill of exceptions.

There can be no doubt that under our statute a conviction cannot be had upon the testimony of the female seduced unsupported by other testimony. This branch of our statute has not been construed by this court except in the case of Hausenfluck v. Com., 85 Va. 702, 8 S. E. 683; but that case affords little aid in the determination of the question here presented, because the corroborating evidence was so strong as to place it beyond the reach of all doubt or cavil. No case has occurred, it is believed, in which it has been necessary accurately to weigh and discriminate the character, quantity, or degree of supporting testimony necessary to justify a conviction; nor is it the purpose of this opinion to undertake to indicate the precise amount of corroborating testimony which would in all cases...