Brooks v. State

• Decision Date: 13 November 1916
• Docket Number: 248
• Citation: Brooks v. State, 189 S.W. 669, 126 Ark. 98 (Ark. 1916)
• Parties: BROOKS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

189 S.W. 669

126 Ark. 98

BROOKS v. STATE

No. 248

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 13, 1916

Appeal from Sevier Circuit Court; Jefferson T. Cowling, Judge affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Steel & Lake and James D. Head, for appellant.

1. There is no corroboration of the prosecuting witness either as to the promise of marriage or the intercourse. 77 Ark. 16 23, 468; 95 Id. 555; 92 Id. 421.

2. Prejudicial evidence as to other acts was admitted.

Wallace Davis, Attorney General, and Hamilton Moses, Assistant, for appellee.

1. The evidence is clearly corroborative of the testimony of the prosecutrix. 77 Ark. 472; 40 Id. 482; 92 Id. 421.

2. No prejudicial evidence was admitted. The evidence complained of was excluded.

OPINION

HART, J.

Clayton Brooks was convicted of the crime of seduction and prosecutes this appeal from the judgment of conviction.

It is conceded that the testimony of the prosecuting witness established the crime, but it is insisted that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict of the jury for the reason that there is no corroboration of the prosecuting witness. In such cases before a conviction can be had it is necessary for the testimony of the prosecutrix to be corroborated, both as to the promise of marriage and the sexual intercourse. Nichols v. State, 92 Ark. 421, 122 S.W. 1003, and Cook v. State 102 Ark. 363, 144 S.W. 221.

According to the testimony of the prosecutrix the first act of intercourse occurred in February, 1915, and the illicit relation continued until the defendant left the neighborhood in July of that year. On November 12, 1915, a child was born to the prosecutrix and a short time thereafter she made an affidavit before a justice of the peace charging the defendant with seduction. Before the warrant was issued the justice of the peace was requested to interview the defendant about the charge and did so. He said that he went to the home of defendant's parents and found the defendant hiding in a closet with a gun; that defendant seemed to be excited; that he told the defendant he had come over to see if he would do the right thing and marry the girl; that the defendant said that he was willing to marry the girl but that his father did not want him to; that the defendant ran off before the warrant could be served on him and remained away from the State until after an indictment was returned against him and then came back and gave himself into custody; that after the defendant was indicted the witness again met him and in talking about the crime the defendant said he had come to the conclusion he would be convicted but that he would get a pardon before he went to the penitentiary.

Doctor Clingham stated that he was called to the home of the prosecutrix and after ascertaining that she was pregnant he went to see the defendant; that he told the defendant that if he wronged the girl, he knew it and that if he did do it, he ought to go ahead and marry her and ...