Douglass v. State
Decision Date | 04 November 1912 |
Citation | 150 S.W. 860,105 Ark. 218 |
Parties | DOUGLASS v. STATE |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Robert J. Lea Judge; reversed.
Judgment reversed. Cause remanded.
Jackson & Jones, Bradshaw, Rhoton & Helm and A. M. Fulk, for appellant.
Hal L Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant for appellee.
OPINION
The defendant, Ensley Douglass, was indicted for the crime of assault with intent to commit rape upon Nina Carroll, a girl about sixteen years of age. The trial jury convicted him of the charge, and he was sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of ten years, and appeals from the judgment of conviction.
The offense is alleged to have been committed in the city of Little Rock on or about June 10, 1912, at night in the bedroom of Nina Carroll and her elder sister, Goldie Carroll, who occupied the room together. Nina Carroll was, as before stated, about sixteen years old, and her sister was about twenty-one years old. They were both well acquainted with the defendant, and he and Goldie Carroll had been on terms of intimacy for several years. She testified that he had promised to get a divorce from his wife and marry her, and that they had frequently had sexual intercourse. It is claimed that he wrongfully entered the bedroom of these young ladies in the night time and attempted, by force and threats, to have intercourse with the younger of them.
There are several assignments of error, and the one to which we shall address our attention is that the evidence is not sufficient to make out a case of assault with intent to rape; and, as the conclusion we reach on that question is decisive of the case, the other assignments need not be discussed.
Nina Carroll testified that she recognized the defendant as her assailant, and she gave the following testimony concerning the assault:
This is all the testimony on the subject, and the question is, was it sufficient to constitute an assault with intent to commit rape? The evidence shows that there was a technical assault by touching or taking hold of the hand of the girl by the defendant, and also, after he had desisted from his attempt to induce her to have sexual intercourse with him, by again touching her person, Drawing a gun with intent to use it or to coerce her was also a technical assault. But did these technical assaults constitute a part of the essential element of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Owens
... ... 443; State v. Scholl, 130 Mo. 396, 32 S.W. 968 ... The ... crime can only be committed by the attempt to use necessary ... force to accomplish the purpose, and with the present intent ... to do so. Warren v. State, 51 Tex. Crim. Rep. 598, ... 103 S.W. 888; Douglass v. State, 105 Ark. 218, 42 ... L.R.A. (N.S.) 524, 150 S.W. 860; Franey v. People, supra; ... Skinner v. State, 28 Neb. 814, 45 N.W. 53; Dina ... v. State, 46 Tex. Crim. Rep. 402, 78 S.W. 230; ... People v. Kirwin, 10 N.Y. Crim. Rep. 338, 22 N.Y.S ... 164; Moore v. State, 79 Wis. 546, ... ...
-
McDonald v. State
... ... by striking out the words in parentheses, towit: "and ... not merely a preparation," and gave the instruction as ... modified. To sustain this assignment, the appellant relies ... upon the cases of Anderson v. State, 77 ... Ark. 37, 90 S.W. 846, and Douglass v ... State, 105 Ark. 218, 150 S.W. 860. In these cases we ... held: "The statute of this State requiring the unlawful ... act to be coupled with the present ability to do the injury ... clearly indicated that the unlawful act must be the beginning ... or part of the act to injure or the ... ...
-
Poole v. State
...of assault with intent to rape, '* * * but that it will sustain a judgment for an assault and battery * * *.' Douglass v. State, 105 Ark. 218, 150 S.W. 860, 42 L.R.A.,N.S., 524. Appellant entered the bedroom of the prosecuting witness at night; he was on his knees beside the bed holding her......
-
McDonald v. State
...this assignment, the appellant relies upon the cases of Anderson v. State, 77 Ark. 37, 90 S. W. 846, and Douglass v. State, 105 Ark. 218, 150 S. W. 860, 42 L. R. A. (N. S.) 524. In these cases we "The statute of this state, requiring the unlawful act to be coupled with the present ability t......