Anderson v. State
Decision Date | 04 November 1905 |
Citation | 90 S.W. 846,77 Ark. 37 |
Parties | ANDERSON v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; JOEL D. CONWAY, Judge; reversed.
Frank S. Quinn, for appellant.
To sustain the charge of assault with intent to rape, it is necessary to prove such acts as show an intent to obtain carnal knowledge of the female forcibly and against her will. 8 Ark. 400; 11 Ark. 390; 13 Ark. 360; 29 Ark. 116; 32 Ark 702; 63 Ark. 470.
Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.
The assault is not denied, and the jury have passed upon the intent. The fact that defendant, after forming the intent and making the assault, abandoned his purpose of his own accord is no defense. 86 Va. 382; 43 Neb. 30; 67 Ga. 349.
OPINION
A little girl about ten years old, named Pearl Bond, left her home at Judsonia, in this State, in April, 1905, to visit relatives at Weatherford, Texas. She was placed in care of the conductor of the train on which she took passage. At Texarkana, Ark., she changed cars. When she arrived there the conductor placed her in charge of one of the employees of the railroad company, with instructions to put her on the next train for Weatherford, Texas. While waiting for that train, she went to sleep. When she woke, Charles Anderson was sitting by her side. She says:
Upon these facts the grand jury of Miller County indicted Anderson for an assault upon Pearl Bond with intent to rape her; and upon testimony to the same effect he was convicted. Was he guilty?
There is a contrariety of opinion as to what is necessary to constitute an assault at common law. Mr. Bishop says: "An assault is any unlawful physical force, partly or fully put in motion, creating a reasonable apprehension of immediate physical injury to a human being; as raising a cane to strike him; pointing in a threatening manner a loaded gun at him: and the like." 2 Bishop's New Criminal Law, § 23. In speaking of an attempt to commit a particular crime, after treating of the intent necessary to constitute such an attempt a crime, he says: 1 Bishop's New Criminal Law, § 737. This is a reiteration of what he says of the act necessary to constitute an assault. Of course, acts necessary to constitute an assault are necessary to constitute an assault to commit a particular crime. Some courts do not sustain this view, but we hold that, to constitute an assault, the accused "must have intended and have had the power to carry his menace into effect." Pratt v. State, 49 Ark. 179, 182, 4 S.W. 785, and cases cited.
Our statutes have settled the question in this State. They say "An assault is an unlawful attempt, coupled with present ability, to commit a violent injury on the person of another."...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
McDonald v. State
...words "and not merely a preparation" As asked the instruction stated the law as to assault with intent to rape as recognized by this court. 77 Ark. 37; Ark. 218. J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter, Wm. T. Hammock and Darden Moose, Assistants, for appellee. 1. There was no abuse o......
-
Paul v. State
...36 N. E. 274; Irving v. State, 9 Tex. App. 66; State v. Canada, 68 Iowa, 397, 27 N. W. 288; Charles v. State, 11 Ark. 389; Anderson v. State, 77 Ark. 37, 90 S. W. 846; Harlan v. People, 32 Colo. 397, 76 Pac. 792; Johnson v. State, 63 Ga. 355; Rahke v. State, 168 Ind. 615, 81 N. E. 584; Patt......
-
Paxton v. State
...to do it, he is guilty of assault with intent to rape," is further erroneous in that there must be more than an attempt. 99 Ark. 563; 77 Ark. 37. Wm. Moose, Attorney General, and John P. Streepey, Assistant, for appellee. 1. There is ample evidence to sustain the verdict. 2. The testimony o......
-
Paul v. State
...The facts are no stronger to sustain the charge of an assault with intent to commit rape than were the facts in the case of Anderson v. State, 77 Ark. 37, 90 S.W. 846. In that case the prosecutrix, while waiting for a train at Texarkana, went to sleep. When she awoke, the appellant in that ......