Rhodes v. State
| Decision Date | 31 December 1860 |
| Parties | JOHN F. RHODES v. THE STATE. |
| Court | Tennessee Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
FROM GILES.
The plaintiff in error was tried at the August term, 1860, for an assault and battery with intent to commit a rape upon a female child four years old. The jury convicted him, and fixed his term of imprisonment at two years in the penitentiary. Judge William P. Martin, presiding. Plaintiff in error appealed.
John Walker and John C. Brown, for the plaintiff in error.
John W. Head, Attorney-General, for the State.
This was an indictment for an assault and battery with intent to commit a rape upon a female child of four years old. The jury convicted him, and fixed the term of imprisonment at two years in the penitentiary.
The only question presented in the case is, whether the facts constitute the offence created by § 4615 of the Code.
After giving the common-law definition of rape in § 4610, and in the next section prescribing the punishment of rape upon “a female of ten years and upwards,” it is then provided, in § 4610, that “any person who shall unlawfully and carnally know and abuse a female under the age of ten years shall, on conviction, be punished as in cases of rape.” To constitute rape, the carnal knowledge must be “forcible and against her will.”
This only applies to females of ten years and upwards. But if under ten, it need not be forcible and against the will. This, though not rape, is a felony. But in both cases there must be carnal knowledge. The section now under consideration, and on which this indictment is based, creates another and different felony, in which the object designed is not accomplished. It requires two elements to constitute it,--an act with a certain intent. An assault and battery must be committed on a female with intent to know her “forcibly and against her will.” It it difficult to conceive how any sane man could have this intent in reference to a child of four years old. But this defendant was drunk, and it is said may have had such a purpose in that condition. If he had, though it was impracticable to have accomplished his object and carried out his unholy intent, the crime might be complete, as drunkenness is no excuse for crime. Yet we are of opinion that this section has reference only to cases where, if the intent was carried out, the offence would be rape. That would not be so if the female was under ten. In the description of crime intended to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. State
...or older and that there be an intent to have unlawful carnal knowledge of her forcibly and against her will. T.C.A. § 39--605; Rhodes v. State, 41 Tenn. 351. It is noted from what we have said above about the factual situation here that the prosecution for this crime concerns only the thirt......
-
Harris v. State
...has failed to show, and the proof amply disproves, such voluntary drunkenness would be no excuse for the crime here committed. Rhodes v. State, 41 Tenn. 351; Walden v. State, 178 Tenn. 71, 156 S.W.2d 385; Steele v. State, 189 Tenn. 424, 225 S.W.2d 260; Thomas v. State, 201 Tenn. 645, 301 S.......