Holland v. State

• Decision Date: 23 April 1914
• Docket Number: 222
• Citation: 66 So. 126,11 Ala.App. 134
• Parties: HOLLAND v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Court of Appeals

66 So. 126

11 Ala.App. 134

HOLLAND v. STATE.

No. 222

Court of Appeals of Alabama

April 23, 1914

Rehearing Denied May 14, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Limestone County; D.W. Speake, Judge.

Hughey Holland was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

James E. Horton, of Athens, for appellant.

R.C. Brickell, Atty. Gen., and T.H. Seay, Asst Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER P.J.

The indictment was in the Code form for an indictment for seduction (Code, § 7161, form 97), except that "di" occupied the place of the word "did," as used in that form. No person of common understanding who might detect the omission of a letter from one word of the indictment could fail to know from the context, as a matter of common sense, the exact word which was intended, and that the defect was a mere clerical error, which did not in the least obscure the meaning of the charge. Such a person would not be more certain of the meaning if there had been no omission of the final "d." An indictment is not vitiated by a mere clerical slip, the correction of which is furnished by the context. The demurrer to the indictment was properly overruled. Sanders v. State, 2 Ala.App. 13 56 So. 69; Witt v. State, 5 Ala.App. 137, 59 So 715; Stalworth v. State, 155 Ala. 14, 46 So. 518.

The statute which defines the offense of seduction provides that:

"No indictment or conviction shall be had under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged." Code, § 7776.

The defendant in this case moved the court to quash the indictment, because it was found by the grand jury on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman upon whom the seduction was charged. The evidence introduced on the hearing of this motion was not such as to require favorable action on the motion. There was evidence tending to prove that there were two witnesses before the grand jury besides the prosecutrix. The testimony of each of the two grand jurymen who were examined exhibited such a lack of recollection of what was deposed to before the grand jury as to warrant the conclusion that there was no satisfactory showing of an absence of testimony in corroboration of that of the prosecutrix. The indictment having been duly returned, properly indorsed as a true bill, and bearing the signature of the foreman, the presumption is that it was regularly found on legal and sufficient evidence. 22 Cyc. 206. It is not made to appear that the evidence offered in support of the motion to quash was sufficient to overcome this presumption. In the case of Allen v. State, 162 Ala. 74, 50 So. 279, 19 Ann.Cas. 867, it was held that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of the lack of evidence before the grand jury which was corroborative of that of the prosecutrix. There was no such improper exclusion of evidence in the instant case, and the testimony as to what occurred before the grand jury was not such as to require a finding that the indictment was found on insufficient evidence.

The requirement of the statute as to corroborating evidence is met when there is evidence as to a material fact, other than that furnished by the testimony of the woman herself, which is sufficient to satisfy the jury that the woman is worthy of credit. Suther v. State, 118 Ala 88, 24 So. 43; Munkers v. State, 87 Ala. 94, 6 So. 357; Wilson v. State, 73 Ala. 527. The required corroboration is supplied by evidence from another source of circumstances which tend to prove the existence of a material element of the offense as testified to by the woman. 2 Chamberlayne on Evidence, § 1597. In the trial there was evidence, other than the testimony of the woman, tending to prove that the defendant, during the period referred to in her incriminating testimony, was visiting her openly, and with such frequency as to suggest the existence of a marriage engagement between them, that during that time they together made a trip to and inspected a farm which he had rented, and that the defendant fled from the locality very soon after he heard from others that she was claiming that she was with child by him. The defendant admitted that he had sexual intercourse with the woman during the period referred to in her testimony. His flight was a circumstance having some tendency to show his consciousness of guilt. Elmore v. State, 98 Ala. 12, 13 So. 427; 2 Chamberlayne on Evidence, § 1399a. A material feature of the seduction testified to by the woman was the existence of the influence or inducement of the man's promise to marry her. The defendant's flight, in connection with the other circumstances...