Knowles v. State

• Decision Date: 01 June 1914
• Docket Number: (No. 16.)
• Citation: 168 S.W. 148
• Parties: KNOWLES v. STATE.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

168 S.W. 148

KNOWLES v. STATE.

(No. 16.)

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 1, 1914.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Benton County; J. S. Maples, Judge.

J. M. Knowles was convicted of incest, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Walter Mathews, of Bentonville, for appellant. Wm. L. Moose, Atty. Gen., and Jno. P. Streepey, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

HART, J.

J. M. Knowles has appealed from a judgment of conviction for the crime of incest, charged to have been committed by committing adultery with Pearl Knowles, his daughter. The facts are as follows:

Pearl Knowles testified:

"I am 18 years of age, and am the daughter of the defendant, J. M. Knowles. I have had sexual intercourse with him several times a month for the past 3 years in Benton county, Ark. As a result of that intercourse, I gave birth to a child. It died about 2 or 3 days after its birth, and my father buried it in the yard near the house. I submitted to all these acts of intercourse of my own accord."

Bob Campbell testified:

"I am chief of police of the city of Eureka Springs, in Carroll county, Ark. I arrested the defendant there, and he wanted to know if he was charged with murdering his child. I told him that he was charged with having sexual intercourse with his daughter. He said: `If I am not charged with murdering the child, I am not uneasy. I do not care for the charge of doing business with my daughter, for I am guilty of that.'"

Sid Murphy testified:

"I am constable in Benton county, Ark. I went to Eureka Springs after the defendant was arrested there, and brought him back to Benton county. While on the way back he confessed to me that he had been having intercourse with his daughter, Pearl Knowles, for the past three years."

Campbell and Murphy each stated that the confession made to him was a voluntary one.

A marriage certificate was introduced to the effect that John M. Knowles and Miss Catherine Edmonson were united in marriage in the state of Kansas on the 25th day of August, 1895.

Margaret Jerminiger testified:

"I live in the state of Kansas, and have known the defendant for 20 years. He lived in Kansas until about 3 years ago. The Catherine Edmonson mentioned in the marriage certificate above referred to is my sister, and the wife of the defendant. He has lived with her as his wife since their marriage, and she is now present in the courtroom. I have visited them frequently during their married life."

Jane Lovette testified:

"I attended Pearl Knowles when she gave birth to the child testified to in this case. The baby died two days after it was born."

Counsel for defendant contends that the court erred in refusing to give the following instruction:

"The court instructs the jury that you cannot convict the defendant upon the confession made by him to witnesses Sid Murphy and Bob Campbell, unless such confession is accompanied by other proof that the offense with which the defendant is charged was actually committed by him and the proof required to accompany such confession, in order to convict the defendant, cannot be made by Pearl Knowles alone."

Section 2385 of Kirby's Digest provides that the confession of a defendant, unless made in open court, will not warrant a conviction, unless accompanied with other proof that such offense was committed. See, also, McLemore v. State, 164 S. W. 119.

Section 2384 of Kirby's Digest provides that a conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense, and the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows that the offense was committed and the circumstances thereof.

The testimony shows that the prosecuting witness voluntarily committed sexual intercourse with her father, and this made her an accomplice. In most jurisdictions where the question has arisen it has been held that the evidence of a person who was a voluntary party to an incest must be corroborated, because of statutes requiring the evidence of accomplices to be corroborated. See case note to 18 Ann. Cas. at page 975. See, also, Gaston v. State, 95 Ark. 233, 128 S. W....