Hudson v. Com.

• Decision Date: 25 November 1914
• Citation: 161 Ky. 257,170 S.W. 620
• Parties: HUDSON v. COMMONWEALTH.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

170 S.W. 620

161 Ky. 257

HUDSON v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

November 25, 1914

Appeal from Circuit Court, Owen County.

Halcomb Hudson was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Botts &amp Perry, of Owenton, for appellant.

Jas Garnett, Atty. Gen., Robt. T. Caldwell, Asst. Atty. Gen., W A. Lee, of Owenton, and John J. Howe, Commonwealth Atty., of Carrollton, for the Commonwealth.

HOBSON C.J.

Halcomb Hudson was indicted in the Owen circuit court for the crime of seducing, under promise of marriage, Ethel Hamilton, a female under 21 years of age. His defense was, in effect, that he did not seduce the woman, but that she was in fact unchaste before he had carnal knowledge of her. Presenting this defense to the jury, the court gave this instruction:

"The court instructs the jury that although they may believe from the evidence that the defendant herein did seduce Ethel Hamilton under promise to marry her as alleged in the indictment, yet if they further believe from the evidence that at the time of the alleged promise and seduction the said Ethel Hamilton was a lewd woman, and shortly prior thereto had sexual intercourse with others, they will find the defendant not guilty."

The jury found the defendant guilty, and he appeals.

In Berry v. Commonwealth, 149 Ky. 398, 149 S.W. 824, where we had a similar instruction before us we said:

"We find no error in the instructions of the court, so far as they go, except that in instruction 3, the words, 'if they believe from the evidence,' should be omitted, as the defendant is entitled to the benefit of the reasonable doubt on the whole case. The instruction should be so framed as to show this. The court erred in not defining to the jury what seduction is. In 2 Roberson's Criminal Law, § 493, the rule is thus stated: 'It is essential that the woman seduced be of chaste character at the time of the intercourse, though it is not so expressed in the statute.' "

In that case we outlined an instruction to be given which should be given in this case on another trial by adding to instruction No. 1 after the words, "in the indictment herein," these words:

"The defendant is not guilty unless Ethel Hamilton was, at the time complained of, and had been for a reasonable time theretofore, a woman of chaste conduct. Though there had been formerly unchastity on her part, this does not exonerate the defendant if, for a

...