Hussey v. State

• Decision Date: 22 February 1889
• Citation: 86 Ala. 34,5 So. 484
• Parties: HUSSEY v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

5 So. 484

86 Ala. 34

HUSSEY v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

February 22, 1889

Appeal fro circuit court, Pike county; JOHN P. HUBBARD, Judge.

John Hussey appeals from a conviction for seduction. Defendant asked the following charges in writing, and duly excepted to their refusal: "(4) If the prosecutrix used or practiced falsehood in avowing herself a widow, although she may have been instigated to it by the defendant, this is a circumstance to which the jury may look in determining the credibility of her testimony. (5) If the jury believed that any witness hugged and kissed the prosecutrix, and felt of her person, and she willingly submitted to it, this is a circumstance to which the jury may look in determining her chastity. (7) If any witness testified to the bad character of the prosecutrix for chastity before the alleged offense the jury may believe her to have been unchaste, if they believe the witnesses, although it may not be proved that she had connection with any other man before the offense. (9) If the character of the prosecutrix for chastity is proved to be bad, then the jury ought not to convict the defendant although her intercourse with any other man or men is not proved."

Harper & Gardiner, for appellant.

T N. McClellan, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SOMERVILLE J.

The fourth and fifth charges requested by the defendant were mere arguments for the jury on the facts of the case, and announced no sound propositions of law based on the evidence, as all charges should do, other than those based on the sufficiency of the evidence. "Charges of this character," as we have heretofore observed, "asserting that the jury 'may look to' this fact, or 'may consider' that fact, or 'are authorized to infer' certain formulated conclusions from the evidence, and especially from specific parts of it, have often been condemned by us as objectionable, and should never be given, although either the giving or the refusal of such instructions may not be a reversible error. They are legitimate arguments for the jury, not announcements of legal principles proper to be in the form of instructions by the court." Snider v. Burks, 84 Ala. 53, 59, 4 South. Rep. 225. There was no error in refusing either of these instructions.

The statute provides that in the prosecution for the seduction of an unmarried woman, like the present, "no conviction can be had, if on the trial it is proved that such woman was,...