Martin v. State
| Decision Date | 15 April 1919 |
| Docket Number | 4 Div. 586 |
| Parties | MARTIN v. STATE. |
| Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied. May 13, 1919
Appeal from Circuit Court, Coffee County; A.B. Foster, Judge.
Louis Martin was convicted of having carnal knowledge of girl between 12 and 16 years of age, in violation of Code 1907, § 7700, Acts 1915, p. 137, and he appeals. Affirmed.
J.A Carnley, of Elba, for appellant.
J.Q Smith, Atty. Gen., for the State.
The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the offense denounced by section 7700 of the Code of 1907, as amended by an act approved March 17, 1915. Acts 1915, p. 137.
The evidence introduced by the state tended to show that he had intercourse with the girl named in the indictment in 1916 and in March, 1917, and that she was born in October, 1901. Defendant denied having intercourse with his alleged victim and the evidence introduced on his behalf tended to show that she was born in the year 1899.
The purpose of the statute above referred to is to protect girls who are over the age of 12 years and under 16, by absolutely prohibiting intercourse with them, and this without regard to their reputation for chastity or their status in society. (This law, however, does not apply to boys under sixteen years of age.) Therefore the trial court was not in error in sustaining the objections to the line of questions seeking to show that the girl in question associated with men, or had intercourse with men, in 1916. What Mrs. Andrews' little girl had said to defendant was manifestly hearsay evidence, and was therefore inadmissible, and the court did not err in declining to allow the conversation (whatever it was does not here appear) to be introduced in evidence.
The statement of a deceased parent in reference to a child's age may be received in evidence, though given by a third party, as tending to establish the age of the child. Rowland v. Ladiga's Heirs, 21 Ala. 9, 32; Rogers v. De Bardeleben Coal & Iron Co., 97 Ala. 154, 12 So. 81.
The defendant brought out, on cross-examination of the girl in question, that she had given birth to a child some time after the alleged commission of the carnal act charged. It was therefore permissible for the state to ask her if the defendant was the father of the child. The physical fact that a child had been born was proof positive that some one had violated the law, if the girl in question was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. State
... ... There ... is a rule of evidence which allows the statement of a ... deceased parent in reference to a child's age to be ... received in evidence, though given by a third party, as ... tending to establish the age of the child, etc. Martin v ... State, 17 Ala. App. 73, 81 So. 851; but before this rule ... can be invoked for this or any other purpose, the death of ... the parent in question must be first shown. This is ... elementary and needs no discussion. For like reasons the ... court properly, and without error, sustained ... ...
-
Adams v. State
...the motion for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence. Martin v. State, 17 Ala.App. 73, 81 So. 851; Chaney v. State, 29 Ala.App. 225, 194 So. Bryant v. State, 31 Ala.App. 355, 17 So.2d 427. Appellant's counsel argues that the ......
-
Davis v. State
... ... Each act of carnal knowledge of a girl under ... 16 years of age is a separate and distinct offense, and the ... fact that another than defendant was also guilty of a crime ... with the girl would in no wise tend to exonerate defendant or ... shed any light on this transaction. Martin v. State, ... 17 Ala.App. 73, 81 So. 851; Bryan v. State, 18 ... Ala.App. 199, 89 So. 894 ... The ... state had offered evidence tending to prove that the girl in ... this case gave birth to a child on March 26th, after the ... alleged crime had been committed. This evidence was ... ...
-
Powell v. State
...prohibiting intercourse with them, and this without regard to their reputation of chastity or their status in society. Martin v. State, 17 Ala.App. 73, 81 So. 851. The punishment for the offense denounced by Title 14, Section 399, supra, ranges from two to ten years in the penitentiary, and......