Harris v. State

• Decision Date: 28 July 1916
• Citation: 72 So. 520,72 Fla. 128
• Parties: HARRIS v. STATE.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

72 So. 520

72 Fla. 128

HARRIS v. STATE.

Florida Supreme Court

July 28, 1916

Error to Circuit Court, Pasco County; O. K. Reaves, Judge.

John A P. Harris was convicted of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under 18 years of age, and brings error. Affirmed.

Syllabus by the Court

SYLLABUS

Assignments of error not argued will be treated as having been abandoned.

Testimony as to an extrajudicial confession made by a defendant in a criminal prosecution is properly admitted, over the objection that there has been no proof of the corpus delicti, when testimony as to the corpus delicti has been previously adduced, even though such testimony may not be entirely clear and satisfactory.

In a criminal prosecution for carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of 18 years the following charge is not erroneous: 'To constitute carnal intercourse there must have been actual contact of the male organ with the femal organ resulting in penetration of the female by the male organ to some extent, but not necessarily to the extent of puncturing the hymen. It is also unnecessary for the state to prove emission of seed.'

COUNSEL R. B. Sturkie, of Dade City, for plaintiff in error.

T. F West, Atty. Gen., and C. O. Andrews, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

OPINION

SHACKLEFORD J.

John A P. Harris was convicted of the crime of having carnal intercourse with an unmarried female under the age of 18 years, the indictment being based on chapter 6974 of the Laws of Florida (Acts of 1915, vol. 1, page 487), which is as follows:

'An act to amend section 3521 of the General Statutes of the State of Florida.

'Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Florida:

'Section 1. That section 3521 of the General Statutes of the state of Florida be and the same is hereby amended so as to read as follows:

'3521. Carnal Intercourse With Unmarried Female Under Eighteen Years.--Whoever has carnal intercourse with any unmarried female of previous chaste character, who is at the time of such intercourse under the age of eighteen years, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state penitentiary not more than ten years, or by fine not exceeding two thousand dollars.

'Sec. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage and approval by the Governor.

'Became a law without the approval of the Governor.'

Twelve errors are assigned, but the defendant states in his brief that he bases his argument upon two points; therefore we shall confine our discussion to these points, treating the other assignments as having been abandoned.

The first assignment argued is the seventh, which is as follows:

'Because the court erred in allowing the state witness, John C. Herron, to testify to an alleged confession made by the defendant, out of court, without proof of the corpus delicti.'

The only authority cited in support thereof is Tucker v. State, 64 Fla. 518, 59 So. 941, wherein we held as follows:

'Evidence of an extrajudicial confession of guilt standing alone will not authorize a conviction on a criminal charge, even though the jury believe the confession was made as testified to and that it is true. There should be * * * some additional substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial, of the corpus delicti.'

We fully approve of this holding, but, unfortunately for the contention of the defendant, it cannot avail him, as the confession of the defendant as testified to by a state witness does not stand alone. The prosecuting witness, Jessie Herron, prior to the testimony by another state witness as to such confession by the defendant, had testified as to the corpus delicti. While it is true that this prosecuting witness was only 12 years of age and her testimony is not as clear and satisfactory as we would like, we think that it affords a sufficient basis for the testimony as to the confession of the defendant.

The other assignment is based upon the following portion of the general charge of the trial court:

'To constitute carnal intercourse there must have been actual contract of the male organ with the female organ, resulting in penetration of the female by the male organ to some extent, but not necessarily to the extent...