Plunkett v. State
| Decision Date | 07 May 1904 |
| Parties | PLUNKETT v. STATE.<SMALL><SUP>*</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Logan County; Jeptha H. Evans, Judge.
Wesley Plunkett was convicted of statutory rape, and appeals. Affirmed.
At the January term, 1902, of the Logan circuit court, for the Northern District, the grand jury returned an indictment against the appellant for carnal abuse, charging that he, on the 10th of April, 1901, in the Northern District of Logan county, Ark., unlawfully and feloniously did carnally know one Annie E. Walker, a female, under the age of 16 years; they, "the said Wesley Plunkett and Annie E. Walker, not being then and there married to each other, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas." At the August term appellant waived arraignment, pleaded not guilty, was tried by a jury, convicted, and sentenced. Appellant moved to arrest the judgment because he says the indictment did not state facts sufficient to constitute an offense.
R. J. White, S. R. Chew, and J. H. Carmichael, for appellant. Geo. W. Murphy, Atty. Gen., for the State.
WOOD, J. (after stating the facts).
Appellant contends that the indictment is bad because neither the statute under which it is drawn nor any other statute defines what is an unlawful carnal knowledge, and because it was not an offense at the common law to have carnal knowledge of a female between the ages of 12 and 16, with her consent. The statute under which appellant was indicted is as follows: "Every person convicted of carnally knowing or abusing unlawfully any female person under the age of sixteen years shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary for a period of not less than five nor more than 21 years." The Legislature intended by this enactment to make it a felony for any person to carnally know or abuse any female under the age of 16 years, except in cases of marriage, either with or without her consent. Our statute makes it lawful for females to marry at the age of 14 years. Section 4907, Sand. & H. Digest. And the word "unlawfully" was used in the criminal statute under consideration with reference to the above provision of the civil statute, and to except those who came within it. If this was not the purpose of the use of the word "unlawfully," then it had no purpose, and the Legislature was engaged in putting a foolish conglomeration of words into a meaningless sentence. To protect young girls from the wanton wiles of the seducer, the Legislature fixed the age at which she could consent to sexual intercourse, except in case of marriage, at 16 years. The law against rape afforded them ample protection against forcible intercourse before the passage of this act. We must give to every word in a statute some meaning, if it is possible to do so and carry out the purpose of the Legislature. But it is obvious that, unless the word "unlawfully" was used in the sense indicated above, it is meaningless, and its use was surplusage; for the statute would be complete without it, and defines the crime of, and prescribes the punishment for, carnal knowledge or abuse of a female under age of 16 years.
The prosecutrix testified that about the last of March or first of April, 1901, appellant had sexual intercourse with her...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Plunkett v. State
-
State v. Wilson
...other person, either before or after the intercourse on which the state relies for conviction, was an immaterial issue. State v. Plunkett, 72 Ark. 409, 82 S. W. 845;State v. Stimpson, 78 Vt. 124, 62 Atl. 14, 1 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1153, 6 Ann. Cas. 639. The appellant requested certain instructi......
-
State v. Wilson
...other person, either before or after the intercourse on which the state relies for conviction, was an immaterial issue. State v. Plunkett, 72 Ark. 409, 82 S.W. 845; State v. Stimpson, 78 Vt. 124, 62 Atl. 14, 1 LRA (NS) 1153, 6 Ann. CMS. The appellant requested certain instructions and now u......