Anderson v. State

• Decision Date: 09 August 1894
• Citation: 104 Ala. 83,16 So. 108
• Parties: ANDERSON v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

16 So. 108

104 Ala. 83

ANDERSON v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

August 9, 1894

Appeal from circuit court, Blount county; John B. Tally, Judge.

Adolphus E. Anderson was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment, while the defendant attempted to show that the said Izora Compton was unchaste. Thomas Bright, a witness for the state, testified that "the defendant came to where he was at work in his field in April, 1893 (after he had been arrested for bastardy, the result of the seduction of said Izora), and that witness told defendant that he could not get out of the charge of bastardy, and that it would be better to tell witness all about it, and then he (witness) would buy defendant's crop, and assist defendant in leaving the country; and that defendant then said, 'I have no way of proving myself clear, and am going to leave."' The defendant then moved to exclude all of this witness' testimony about defendant's going to leave, and duly excepted to the court's overruling his motion. Lee Mayfield was introduced as a witness for the state, and testified "that he was the officer who arrested the defendant in April, 1893, on a warrant issued out of the justice court charging defendant with bastardy; and that on his return with the prisoner, he (witness) told the prisoner that the Compton boys were going to force him to leave the country, and it would be lighter on him, as he could not deny the charge, if he would own up." This witness was then asked "What did the defendant answer to the remark made by you?" The defendant objected to this question, and duly excepted to the court overruling his objection. The witness answered: "He said: 'I have no witnesses to prove myself out, and it may be that I had better own up."' The defendant moved to exclude this answer and duly excepted to the court overruling his motion.

After the prosecuting attorney had announced that he would close the case for the state, the court suggested to him that "You had better prove that the offense was committed in this county." The defendant duly excepted to this remark. The state then proved the venue of the crime to have been in Blount county before the finding of the indictment. During his opening argument, the prosecuting attorney used the following language: "It is intimated here that young Self is the father of this child. It is not true. He came from too nice a family to do such a thing. His father reared him better. You all know his father. He is one of the best citizens of this country, and you know it." The defendant objected to this portion of the argument, and moved the court to exclude it from the jury; but the court overruled his objection, and the defendant duly excepted. The defendant requested the court to give the jury the following written charge, and duly excepted to the refusal of the court to give it: "The word 'seduction' means more than illicit sexual connection. Under the statute, it means the surrender of chastity, a surrender of a woman's personal virtue; and the jury must believe from the evidence, beyond all reasonable doubt, that Izora Compton surrendered her chastity, or personal virtue, by the promise of marriage by the defendant, before they find the defendant guilty as charged in the indictment."

Coleman & Davidson, for appellant.

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

HEAD J.

The defendant was indicted and tried for the offense of seduction, under the statute (Code, § 4015), which provides that: "Any man, who, by means of temptation, deception arts, flattery, or a promise of marriage, seduces any unmarried woman in this state, must on conviction be imprisoned in the penitentiary," etc., "but no indictment or conviction shall be had, under this...