Carrens v. State

• Decision Date: 04 November 1905
• Citation: 91 S.W. 30,77 Ark. 16
• Parties: CARRENS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

91 S.W. 30

77 Ark. 16

CARRENS v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 4, 1905

Appeal from Randolph Circuit Court; JOHN W. MEEKS, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded.

Black & Robinson, and John B. McCaleb, for appellant.

Defendant could not be convicted on the testimony of the prosecutrix alone, and the letters introduced were not sufficient corroboration. It was error to read them to the jury, in the absence of the witness. Kirby's Digest, § 3145.

It was error to admit evidence of contradictory statements by a witness, without first having inquired of him concerning them. Kirby's Digest, § 3139; 37 Ark. 324; 52 Ark 303; Ib. 273; 62 Ark. 286.

An allegation which narrows and limits that which is essential is descriptive, and must be proved. 31 Ark. 49; 16 Ark. 499; 62 Ark. 538; 34 Ark. 160; 58 Ark. 242.

Public morals and policy encourage marriage under the circumstances of this case. Defendant having in good faith offered before trial to marry the prosecutrix, which she declined, he should have been acquitted. 21 L. R. A. 733; 70 Mich. 240; 4 Pa. L J. Rep. 551.

Robert L. Rogers, Attorney General, for appellee.

The allegation in the indictment that the prosecutrix previous to the seduction was chaste and virtuous was but an averment of a presumption of law which placed no burden upon the State to prove it. 18 Ark. 540; 73 Ark. 139.

An offer to marry after indictment was no defense. 27 Conn. 319.

OPINION

BATTLE, J.

Seigel Carrens was indicted by a grand jury of Randolph County for seducing Effie Coe., and was convicted. Effie Coe was the only witness examined to prove the charge. In the course of the examination she testified that she received certain letters from the defendant. The letters were not identified or proved to be the letters of the defendant by any other witness. They were read as evidence.

Evidence was also adduced tending to prove that, after the indictment and before the trial, the defendant offered to marry Effie Coe, and she refused.

The court, in part, instructed the jury as follows:

"You are instructed that the defendant cannot be convicted upon the testimony of Miss Effie Coe alone, but her testimony must be corroborated by other evidence upon each of the first two facts; that is, upon the fact of carnal knowledge and promise of marriage mentioned in the foregoing instruction."

And refused to instruct, at the request of the defendant, as follows:

"You are further instructed that if you believe from a preponderance of the evidence that, before the trial of this case began, the defendant in good faith offered and was ready and willing to marry the prosecuting witness, Effie Coe, and if you further believe that the prosecuting witness refused to marry defendant, then it would be your duty to find the defendant not guilty."

The jury found the defendant guilty.

The statutes of this State provide that "no person shall be convicted of seduction upon the testimony of the female unless the same be corroborated by other evidence." Kirby's Digest, § 2043. It must be corroborated as to the promise of marriage and the sexual intercourse. Polk v. State, 40 Ark. 482; Keaton v State, 73 Ark. 265, 83 S.W. 911. It cannot be corroborated by itself--her own testimony. The letters of the defendant were no corroboration. They were a part of her evidence, and their probative force was due to her testimony. By her testimony they were made admissible; it being the only evidence that they were letters of the defendant. A conviction upon such evidence would be the offspring of her own testimony, a result forbidden by the statute.

The instruction asked by the defendant was properly refused. The proposal of the defendant to Effie Coe to marry did...