O'Boyle v. State
Decision Date | 23 June 1898 |
Citation | 100 Wis. 296,75 N.W. 989 |
Parties | O'BOYLE v. STATE. |
Court | Wisconsin Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to circuit court, Juneau county; O. B. Wyman, Judge.
James O'Boyle was convicted of rape, and he brings error. Reversed.
James O'Boyle, the plaintiff in error, was tried in the circuit court for Juneau county upon an information charging him with having committed the crime of rape on the person of Annie Stegeman, a female of the age of 15 years or more, and the jury returned a verdict finding him guilty. The defendant moved to set aside the verdict, and for a new trial; but the court denied the motion, and sentenced him to 10 years' imprisonment in the state prison. At the close of the testimony the defendant moved for a dismissal of the action on the ground that the state had failed to make out by proof the offense charged, and had failed to show that any such force was used as was required, under the law, to constitute the crime charged; but the motion was overruled. These rulings were assigned, with others, as error, as well as that the verdict was not sustained by the evidence.J. M. Morrow and A. H. Smith, for plaintiff in error.
W. H. Mylrea, Atty. Gen., for the State.
PINNEY, J. (after stating the facts).
The evidence is very voluminous, and it is not practicable to give more than a brief abstract of the more material facts. The complainant, Annie Stegeman, was in the sixteenth year of her age, and at the time of the alleged offense, February 20, 1897, was at service in the family of one Fuhrman, a merchant, in the city of Elroy. She had been sent to the store, and on her way home met Myrtle Smith, an acquaintance, who came with her, and stayed until after supper; and then she took witness downtown for a walk, first going to the post office, and Myrtle Smith said, “Come on; let's go downtown and take a walk.” After a time two boys followed them, and got as far as the corner, and caught hold of their arms, and wanted them to go out for a walk. She testified: That she got away from them, and went around to the side door of Raetzman's, and the boys got scared and ran away. That then they went uptown again, and Myrtle wanted to go into the post office, and witness stood outside. When she came out, there was a fellow standing on the corner, talking to her. It was the defendant. “He said we should stop here; that he wanted to take a walk down to Brooklyn.” Witness said she did not want to go, and then, with Myrtle, she went uptown again, where the latter met her mother, who scolded her and took her back home, and that witness did not stay there very long. That it was about a quarter past 7 by that time. That she procured the key of Mrs. Fuhrman, and was going homeward on Main street. That she met O'Boyle, the defendant, at the railroad crossing, and he pulled her over to the depot. The details of the offense, for obvious reasons, are omitted. She testified: That she did not know what O'Boyle was trying to do to her. Thought he was going to kill her. That she did not tell about what happened to her that night to anybody. First told it to Mr. Dithmar, the next Wednesday. She testified: That she never met the defendant before that night. Did not know who he was. Had seen him once on the street. Had never been out walking with him before. O'Boyle came from the freight depot. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Smith v. State
...252.6 Davis v. State, 1904, 120 Ga. 433, 48 S.E. 180; Peery v. State, 1957, 163 Neb. 628, 80 N.W.2d 699.7 See, e.g., O'Boyle v. State, 1898, 100 Wis. 296, 75 N.W. 989; Young v. Commonwealth, 1947, 185 Va. 1032, 40 S.E.2d 805; People v. Grudecki, 1940, 373 Ill. 536, 27 N.E.2d 51. See general......
-
Vogel v. State
...face the stamp of unreliability, and that therefore, under the rule in Hofer v. State, 130 Wis. 576, 586, 110 N. W. 391,O'Boyle v. State, 100 Wis. 296, 300, 75 N. W. 989, and Brown v. State, supra, the principal facts must be corroborated by other testimony. So much of the evidence of the p......
-
Thomas v. State
...there should be corroboration by other evidence as to the principal facts relied on to constitute the crime." O'Boyle v. State, 100 Wis. 296, 300, 75 N.W. 989, 991 (1898); Syvock v. State, supra. Corroboration of Sandra's testimony in this case is found in the medical testimony of Dr. Cohen......
- Brown v. State