Hughes v. State

• Decision Date: 24 June 1935
• Citation: 219 Wis. 9,261 N.W. 670
• Parties: HUGHES v. STATE.
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

219 Wis. 9

261 N.W. 670

HUGHES

v.STATE.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

June 24, 1935.

Error to review a judgment of the Circuit Court for Grant County; S. E. Smalley, Circuit Judge.

Reversed, with directions.

This was a bastardy action, commenced November 29, 1932, by the State of Wisconsin, plaintiff, against Gurden Hughes, defendant. The case was tried to the court and a jury, and the verdict of guilty returned. Defendant brings error. The material facts will be stated in the opinion.Manfred S. Block, of Platteville, for plaintiff in error.

James E. Finnegan, Atty. Gen., J. E. Messerschmidt, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Helmar A. Lewis, Dist. Atty., of Boscobel, for the State.

WICKHEM, Justice.

Two questions are raised upon this appeal. The first is that the evidence does not sustain the conviction. Plaintiff in error, hereafter referred to as defendant, was charged by one Lucille Place with being the father of her illegitimate child. The illicit relations from which it is claimed the pregnancy of the complaining witness resulted are alleged to have occurred on February 21, 1932. The testimony of the complaining witness is that during the afternoon of the day in question she went to the house of defendant's father, remaining there for supper; that defendant came home for supper, and about 9 o'clock accompanied her to her home, which was about a mile and a quarter from defendant's home. They made the trip in an open Ford car. According to her testimony, they parked the car a short distance from her home and had sexual relations. The complaining witness was positive that there was but a single act of intercourse. She was equally positive as to the date. Some time in March the complaining witness claims to have realized that she was or might be pregnant, and attempted to get in touch with defendant. After failing to see him, she sent word by a young man that she was in trouble. She testified that on two occasions shortly thereafter defendant came to see her and made suggestions for getting married and also that she take steps to have an abortion committed or a miscarriage produced. This she refused to do. About a month after this conference defendant married another girl. On the Saturday following the alleged act of intercourse, one Mrs. Nodolf, a sister-in-law of the brother of complaining witness, claims to have talked to defendant, and that he stated that Lucille had been over to his house the preceding Sunday and that he had taken her home on that occasion. Three witnesses testified to the fact that they had had conversations with defendant during the summer of 1932, and that he had admitted in the presence of all of them that Lucille Place's child was or might be his own. This evidence is weakened by the assertion of defendant that the admission was made jokingly, and by the concession of this witness that this might be true.

[1] Defendant's principal defense was an alibi. The testimony of his family was that he was not at home on the evening in question. His fiancée (now his wife), her family, and other witnesses testified that he was in Platteville on the night of February 21st. The testimony of defendant's sisters was that, while prosecuting witness was at their house that night for supper, defendant was not there, but that three other boys came to the house after supper and complaining witness left with them. All this was denied both by complaining witness and by the boys. There was an issue of fact here for the jury, and the judgment cannot be disturbed upon the ground that there is no evidence to sustain the...