Cooper v. State

• Decision Date: 11 February 1891
• Citation: 90 Ala. 641,8 So. 821
• Parties: COOPER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

8 So. 821

90 Ala. 641

COOPER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 11, 1891

Appeal from criminal court, Jefferson county; SAMUEL E. GREENE Judge.

Daniel A. Green, for appellant.

W L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

STONE C.J.

The defendant was indicted and convicted of the crime of seduction. The indictment charges that the seduction was accomplished "by means of temptation, deception, arts flattery, or a promise of marriage." Code 1886, § 4015. The means relied on to procure a conviction in this case was mainly an alleged promise of marriage. The only evidence that such promise was made is the testimony of the woman who is charged to have been seduced. The statute provides that "no conviction shall be had under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged." As we have said, it is claimed in this case that there was a promise of marriage, and that promise was the means by which the alleged seduction was accomplished. This was the question mainly controverted. To justify defendant's conviction on this ground, it was necessary that the jury should be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a marriage engagement between the defendant and the prosecuting witness, and that in consequence of such engagement she surrendered her person to the gratification of his animal passions. Promise of marriage, and subsequent illicit cohabitation, are not necessarily sufficient to make out the offense. They must stand to each other as cause and effect,-that is, the one must be the exciting or producing cause of the other,-or this statutory crime is not committed. It is only when a virtuous woman is overcome and seduced by one or more of the means mentioned in the statute that the case falls within section 4015 of the Code. People v Clark, 33 Mich. 112; Bowers v. State, 29 Ohio St. 542; Bish. St. Crimes, (2d Ed.) § 638. Nor can a conviction be had on the uncorroborated testimony of the person alleged to have been seduced. There must be corroboration by some other witness as to some act or fact which is an element of the offense charged, and such corroboration must tend to connect the accused with such elemental act or a fact. In other words, "the corroboration [must] be such as to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the witness swore truly; but, to produce this conviction, it must be in a matter material to the issue, and must tend to connect the defendant with that material matter." Cunningham v. State, 73 Ala. 51. See, also, Wilson v. State, Id. 527; Leoni v. State, 44 Ala. 110. The sister of the prosecutrix was permitted to testify, against defendant's objection, that "Lula Cruse [prosecutrix] got a dress made ready...