Bethel & Wallace v. State
Decision Date | 05 November 1928 |
Docket Number | 240 |
Citation | 10 S.W.2d 370,178 Ark. 277 |
Parties | BETHEL AND WALLACE v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Mississippi Circuit Court, Chickasawba District; G. E Keck, Judge; reversed.
Judgments reversed and cause remanded.
O H. Hurst and E. E. Alexander, for appellant.
H. W. Applegate, Attorney General, and John L Carter, Assistant, for appellee.
OPINION
Appellants were separately indicted, jointly tried by consent, on a charge of rape committed on the person of Mrs. Pearl Jordan, on Sunday evening, April 1, 1928, were convicted, and sentenced to death by electrocution.
Only two questions are presented for our consideration and determination, as follows:
1. That the court erred in permitting Dr. McCall to testify for the State, over the objections and exceptions of appellants, that on Monday, the day after the crime is said to have been committed on Sunday night, at the request of the sheriff's office he made a physical examination of both defendants, and found Bethel afflicted with acute gonorrhea and Wallace with chronic gonorrhea.
2. That the court erred in permitting the State to prove, over the objection and exception of appellants, the good reputation of the prosecutrix for virtue and chastity.
1. Discussing these assignments of error in this order, we find as to the first point, when objection was made to Dr. McCall's testimony, the court ruled as follows:
In support of the ruling of the court the State's attorney cites the case of People v. Glover, 71 Mich. 303, 38 N.W. 874. But in that case statutory rape was charged, the prosecutrix being only eleven years of age, and the physician, who testified that the defendant, a short time after the commission of the offense, was suffering with gonorrhea, made the examination at the suggestion of the prosecuting attorney, because it had developed that his child victim was suffering with the same disease a short time after the offense was alleged to have been committed. The only evidence of sexual relations with her was her testimony, the defendant denying the same.
The case of State v. Mills, 45 S.D. 633, 189 N.W. 941, is also cited in support of the admissibility of this testimony. On the original hearing appellant's conviction was affirmed, but on rehearing, 45 S.D. 439, 188 N.W. 49, it was reversed, because the trial court had refused to permit appellant's witness, a physician, to testify as to whether, in his opinion, the appellant had gonorrhea at the time he was examined by the witness for the purpose of ascertaining that fact. This was evidence offered by the appellant, and not by the State. This was another case of statutory rape. We think these cases have no bearing upon the subject here under investigation, as the crime charged is not statutory rape, and the identity of the accused is not in question. They freely admitted the sexual intercourse declared by the prosecutrix, but denied that it was done by force and violence, and asserted that it was with her full consent.
Mr. Jones, in his commentaries on the law of evidence, vol. 3, § 1391, states the rule as follows:
In a case quite similar to this one, State v. Horton, 247 Mo. 657, 153 S.W. 1051, except that it was a charge of statutory rape committed by a colored school teacher in Kansas City on one of his pupils, eleven years of age, the court said:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rochin v. People of California
... ... But because the evidence forced from his lips consisted of real objects the People of this state are permitted to base a conviction upon it. (We) find no valid ground of distinction between a ... Statti, 166 Pa.Super. 577, 73 A.2d 688, blood typing linking accused to assault ... 2. Bethel v. State, 178 Ark. 277, 10 S.W.2d 370, examination for venereal disease; State v. Height, 117 Iowa ... ...
-
State v. Cram
... ... Newcomb. See also State v. Horton, 247 Mo. 657, 153 S.W. 1051; State v. Matsinger, (Mo.) 180 S.W. 856 ... In Bethel v. State, 178 Ark. 277, 10 S.W. (2d) 370, defendants were convicted of the crime of rape and appealed. A physician was permitted, over the objection ... ...
-
Bednarik v. Bednarik
... ... In State v. Welling, 1936, 6 O. O. 371, a bastardy proceeding, an application by defendant for the making of ... The Arkansas Court in Bethel et al. v. State, 178 Ark. 277, 10 S.W. 2d 370; Id., 180 Ark. 290, 21 S.W.2d 176, after considering ... ...
-
Kallnbach v. People
... ... rights and privileges guaranteed by section 18, article II of the Constitution of the State" of Colorado, or the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America ... \xC2" ... My views herein expressed find support in the following cases: Bethel v. State, 178 Ark. 277, 10 S.W.2d 370; State v. Horton, 247 Mo. 657, 153 S.W. 1051; State v ... ...
-
Self-incrimination - what can an accused person be compelled to do?
...of this case in 27 Mich. L. Rev. 471 (1929), and in 29 Col. L. Rev. 214 (1929). To the same effect as Corder case see Bethel v. State, 178 Ark. 277, 10 S. W. (2d) 370 (1928), noted in 24 Ill. L. Rev. 487 (26) State v. Horton, 247 Mo. 657, 153 S. W. 1051 (1913) (dictum). Accord: State v. New......