Puckett v. State

• Decision Date: 29 November 1902
• Citation: 70 S.W. 1041,71 Ark. 62
• Parties: PUCKETT v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

70 S.W. 1041

71 Ark. 62

PUCKETT v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

November 29, 1902

Appeal from Pope Circuit Court, WM. L. MOOSE, Judge.

Affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

The appellant, Charlie Puckett, was indicted for the crime of seduction, charging that he unlawfully, on the 15th day of June, 1901, did obtain carnal knowledge of Nora Dunn by virtue of a false express promise of marriage to her previously made by said Charlie Puckett.

Appellant filed his motion for a continuance because of the absence of Will Eustice, a witness, who, if present, would testify "That he and defendant were confidential friends, and that each knew in a confidential way what the other was doing in the way of keeping company with the two daughters of Mrs Dunn, Ella and Nora, said witness generally visiting Ella Dunn at the same time defendant visited Nora Dunn, and witness often saw defendant and Nora Dunn hugging and kissing, and otherwise improperly conducting themselves. And witness knows it to be a fact that he and defendant were frequently with said girls at late hours of night, and that the mother of said girls finally objected, and refused to allow witness and defendant to visit said girls at their home, and that thereafter said girls would meet witness and defendant at other places than their home, sometimes at a neighbor's house, a church gathering or some other place when witness and defendant would take said girls near to their home or some other place after having enjoyed their company until unusually late hours at night; that on one occasion they took said girls to Prairie Grove church, and some sort of literary society was held there that night which adjourned about ten o'clock, after which defendant and witness went home with said girls, and remained with them until near daylight next morning; that on other occasions they would get with said girls at Russellville when there would be a show, or some other occasion, when said witness often saw defendant and Nora Dunn improperly conducting themselves on these occasions. And said witness, if present would testify that he knows the character and reputation of said Nora Dunn, and how she is esteemed by those with whom she associated in company prior to the time of her alleged seduction, and that she was not regarded as a chaste woman. Defendant says said evidence is material, and that said witness is not absent by his consent, connivance or procurement; and that he has used due diligence to obtain the attendance of said witness, and that he can have him here in attendance by the next term of this court." The court overruled this motion, and defendant excepted.

Defendant filed another motion for continuance because of the absence of Jim Brown, who would testify that he had knowledge of the fact that the prosecutrix, Nora Dunn, was an unchaste woman prior to her alleged seduction by the defendant. Defendant alleges that he verily believes said facts to be true, and that he has used due diligence, etc., complying with the statute. And the court overrules this motion, and defendant excepts.

The court gave four instructions numbered from one to four.

The court refused to give instruction numbered five asked for by the defendant, and defendant excepted. The following is a copy of this instruction: "You are instructed that in every prosecution for seduction the character of the seduced female is involved; and her character is not her general reputation in the community, but the possession of actual personal chastity; and if you find that she was a lewd woman, or of such easy virtue as to be indifferent about her chastity, prior to the time of her alleged seduction, it will be your duty to acquit the defendant." And the court refused to give said instruction, saying to the jury at the time that her character was not in issue, and the court refused to give any instruction whatever upon character, and the defendant excepted.

R. B. Wilson closed the argument for the state, and used the following as part of his argument:

"You ought to convict this boy. It will be best for him. It will be best for his father, Ped Puckett, for his boy will break him up if something is not done with him. Ped was admonished and warned years ago about the course this boy was leading and merely turned his head away and laughed." Defendant excepted, and the court admonished Judge Wilson that he was outside the record. Judge Wilson replied that he did not mean to be...