Eckert v. State
| Citation | 147 N.E. 150,197 Ind. 412 |
| Decision Date | 08 April 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24,712 |
| Parties | Eckert v. State of Indiana |
| Court | Supreme Court of Indiana |
Rehearing Denied March 18, 1926, Reported at: 197 Ind. 412 at 416.
1. CRIMINAL LAW.---Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for assault and battery with intent to commit rape within the county of the prosecution.---Evidence held sufficient to sustain conviction for assault and battery with intent to commit rape, as defined in 2417 Burns 1926, 2240 Burns 1914, including the venue of the action, although there was evidence that the crime of rape was committed in another county. p. 413.
2 RAPE.---Neither force nor lack of consent is element of crime of assault and battery with intent to rape a fourteen year old girl.---Neither force nor lack of consent is an element of the crime of assault and battery with intent to commit rape on a girl only fourteen years of age. p. 418.
3. RAPE.---Act of accused in taking hold of fourteen year old girl's leg, under the circumstances shown by the evidence, held sufficient to warrant inference of intent to commit rape.---The act of taking hold of the calf of the leg of a fourteen year old girl, while fondling her on the floor of an enclosed truck, constituted evidence warranting an inference of intent to commit rape where that act was soon after committed. p. 418.
4. RAPE.---Evidence of sexual intercourse in another county soon after accused had fondled a fourteen year old girl in the back part of enclosed truck properly admitted to show intent to commit rape in county of prosecution.---Where accused after fondling a fourteen year old girl on the floor of an enclosed truck, was driven into another county, where act of sexual intercourse took place, evidence of such act was properly admitted as tending to show intent to have intercourse with her, which would constitute rape, the fact that it was committed in another county would not affect its probative force relative to such intent. p. 418.
5. CRIMINAL LAW.---Felonious intent may be shown by proof of acts of accused so connected with offense charged as to clearly manifest his purpose, wherever they may have been done.---Felonious intent may be shown by proof of acts of the defendant so connected with the offense charged as to clearly manifest his purpose, wherever they may have been done. p 419.
6. RAPE.---Question of felonious intent while fondling a fourteen year old girl was for the jury.---In a prosecution for assault and battery with intent to commit rape on a fourteen year old girl, the question whether the defendant had the felonious intent while fondling the girl previous to his commission of rape upon her was for the jury. p. 419.
Paul Eckert was convicted of assault and battery with intent to commit rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Rehearing Denied March 18, 1926, Reported at: 197 Ind. 412 at 416.
From Huntington Circuit Court; Sumner Kenner, Judge.
Paul Eckert was convicted of assault and battery with intent to commit rape, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Charles R. Heller, for appellant.
U. S. Lesh, Attorney-General and Mrs. Edward Franklin White, Deputy Attorney-General, for the State.
Appellant was prosecuted on the charge that at a time named, in Huntington county, in the State of Indiana, he made a felonious assault upon W. H., a female child only fourteen years old, and committed a rape of her person. The jury returned a verdict finding that he was guilty of assault and battery with intent to commit rape, and that he was twenty-three years old. Overruling his motion for a new trial is assigned as error. By several specifications in the motion, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, particularly as to the venue of the action. The prosecuting witness testified circumstantially and specifically that, while driving a Ford delivery truck with appellant and another young man and a girl, the truck was stopped beside the road, and that appellant had sexual intercourse with her in the back part of the car; and the other girl of the party testified to the same facts. But there was no direct evidence that this took...
To continue reading
Request your trial