Davis v. State
| Decision Date | 09 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | 8 Div. 922. |
| Citation | 93 So. 269,18 Ala.App. 482 |
| Parties | DAVIS v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Morgan County; Robert C. Brickell, Judge.
Bailey Davis was convicted of seduction, and appeals. Reversed and remanded.
Callahan & Harris, of Decatur, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Lamar Field, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecuting witness testified that she was 20 years of age unmarried, and the mother of a child; that she had known the defendant 5 or 6 years, and had kept company with him since January, 1919; that until he quit coming he visited her two or three times a week; that he took her to church and went around the community with her, sometimes in a buggy; that about May 1, 1919, she and defendant became engaged to be married; that Christmas, 1919, was the time set for the marriage; that defendant was the father of her child (profert was here made of the child); that the child was born April 30, 1920; that the defendant had had intercourse with witness; that the first time was the fourth Sunday in May 1919; she then related the pleading of defendant causing her to yield, including a promise of marriage. The defendant made timely and legal objections to all questions relating to child and its birth and motions to exclude the answers as they were given. All of which objections and motions were overruled at the time, and all of such testimony, including the profert of the child, was permitted to go to and remain before the jury until after prosecuting witness had testified in detail as to the intercourse at the time of the alleged seduction. The court, then, without further motion from the defendant, acting on the defendant's previous motion to exclude, said:
"I will now grant your motion to exclude the baby as evidence and her statements of his being its father."
The defendant on cross-examination of the prosecutrix and later by direct testimony sought to prove some acts of association between one Cobb and prosecutrix in the year 1916, which the court would not permit. After this and on redirect examination, over the timely objection and exception of defendant, prosecutrix was permitted to testify that, after she became pregnant she had a conversation with defendant about her condition; that it was after she became pregnant the last of August or September, 1919; that after she became pregnant defendant carried her to Dr. Suits; that defendant said she would have to get rid of that child, or we couldn't marry and stay there, that they would have to leave; that was when she went to see Dr. Suits; that defendant carried her about 15 miles in a buggy to Dr. Suits; that Dr. Suits called defendant off back of the buggy; that when defendant came back he said they were going to perform some sort of operation on her to get rid of the baby.
This court in Herbert v. State, 16 Ala. App. 213, 77 So 83, held to the opinion that:
The above quotation is now the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Slayton v. State
... ... effect wrought by the admission, over the adversary's ... seasonable objection and exception of such illegal matter, is ... upon the party inducing the admission of such illegal matter ... as evidence in the cause." Watson v. Adams, 187 ... Ala. 490, 65 So. 528, Ann.Cas.1916E, 565; Davis v ... State, 18 Ala.App. 482, 93 So. 269; Booker v ... State, 23 Ala.App. 78, 121 So. 3; Halford v ... State, 24 Ala.App. 540, 137 So. 679 ... Such ... was the law prior to the adoption of Supreme Court Rule 45 ... which now places the burden on the appellant of showing ... ...
-
Phillips v. Ashworth
...50 So. 281. The date of the birth of the child was not such as to show that it was not the result of the seduction within the case of Davis v. State, supra. statute which gives plaintiff the right of action does not make it conditional upon corroboration of the plaintiff (section 5692), whe......
-
Mitchell v. State
...as being the one upon which the seduction occurred, evidence of subsequent acts of sexual intercourse are not admissible. Davis v. State, 18 Ala.App. 482, 93 So. 269; Herbert v. State, 201 Ala. 480, 78 So. 386; Pope v. State, 137 Ala. 56, 34 So. In view of the court's strong and positive in......
-
Cadle v. State
... ... 154, 75 ... So. 902: 'This court has always regarded the practice ... with cautious disapproval.' [27 Ala.App. 522] " ... Without quoting further, we refer to the following decisions ... as direct authority on this point of decision: Powe v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 215, 96 So. 370; Davis v ... State, 18 Ala.App. 482, 93 So. 269; Tuggle v ... State, 19 Ala.App. 541, 98 So. 815; Brown v ... State, 20 Ala.App. 39, 100 So. 616; Pelham v ... State, 23 Ala.App. 359, 125 So. 688; Patterson v ... State, 23 Ala.App. 428, 126 So. 420 ... The ... remaining question ... ...