Rogers v. State

Citation141 S.W. 491,101 Ark. 45
PartiesROGERS v. STATE
Decision Date20 November 1911
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from White Circuit Court; Hance N. Hutton, Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for new trial.

S Brundidge, for appellant.

There is no direct or circumstantial evidence corroborating the prosecuting witness as to the sexual intercourse. 77 Ark. 16; Id. 472; 86 Ark. 30.

The only evidence of any closer intimacy between appellant and the prosecuting witness than between her and other young men of the neighborhood was the letters and postal cards introduced in ev dence, and these, being unsigned and not identified by any testimony except her own, were not a corroboration of her testimony, The court's refusal to give appellant's requested instruction No. 9 was reversible error. 77 Ark. 16-18.

Hal. L Norwood, Attorney General, and William H. Rector, Assistant for appellee.

The instructions given by the court fully cover the law of the case, and specifically the necessity for corroboration of the prosecuting witness as to the promise of marriage and the sexual intercourse. As to the promise of marriage, the sufficiency of the corroboration is practically admitted. The corrobation is sufficient if upon the whole case the jury are satisfied of the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 77 Ark. 468; Id. 23; 67 Ark. 416. As to the sexual intercourse, there was strong corroboration in the presence and exhibition to the jury of the child resulting from the illicit relations, which was competent evidence for the purpose of proving the putative father. 72 Ark. 409; 84 Ark. 199; 93 Ark. 260; 96 Ark. 552.

OPINION

HART, J.

Nathan Rogers has appealed from the judgment of conviction for the crime of seduction. The prosecuting witness identified a number of letters and postal cards as having been written by the defendant. The letters and postal cards were not identified or proved to be the letters of the defendant by any other witness. They were read in evidence. With reference thereto, the defendant asked the court to instruct the jury as follows:

"9. The jury are instructed that while certain letters and postal cards have been read to you as evidence in this case, yet if you find that the only evidence that these were the letters and postal cards of the defendant is that of the prosecuting witness, Ollie Dugger, and she alone undertakes to identify the same, then said letters and postal cards can not be considered by you as testimony tending to corroborate the prosecuting witness, Ollie Dugger."

The court should have given the instruction. It is well settled that when evidence is admitted for a particular purpose, it is the duty of the court to tell the jury to confine the application of the evidence to such purpose. So in the case before us the letters and postal cards were not identified or proved to be the letters and postal cards of the defendant by any other witness except the prosecuting witness herself. Hence they were a part of her evidence, and their probative force was due to her testimony. Carrens v. State, 77 Ark. 16, 91 S.W. 30.

The instruction, as asked, told the jury that if they should find that the only evidence that the letters and postal cards were written by the defendant...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Lind v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 18 Noviembre 1918
    ...40 Ark. 482; 157 P. 704; 22 S.E. 863; 21 Id. 502; 21 S.W. 764; 132 N.W. 431; 30 L. R. A. (N. S.) 173. See also Kirby's Digest, § 2385; 101 Ark. 45, and supra; 59 Ark. 431; 71 Id. 398. 8. It was error to refuse to permit counsel to ask defendant what the father of prosecutrix said in Oklahom......
  • Doran v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 12 Enero 1920
    ...there was no legal corroboration of the prosecutrix's testimony. 3. The court erred in permitting the State to contradict Dr. Armstrong. 101 Ark. 45; 112 Id. 4. The verdict was the result of passion and prejudice, and the impassioned remarks of the State's attorney were highly prejudicial. ......
  • Cook v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 19 Febrero 1912
    ...... be corroborated both as to the promise of marriage and the. sexual intercourse. Rucker v. State, 77. Ark. 23, 90 S.W. 151; Lasater v. State, 77. Ark. 468; Willhite v. State, 84 Ark. 67,. 104 S.W. 531; Cooper v. State, 86 Ark. 30,. 109 S.W. 1023; Rogers v. State, 101 Ark. 45, 141 S.W. 491. . .          Tested. by this rule, a verdict of guilty was warranted by the. evidence, and, the sufficiency of the evidence to support the. verdict not being questioned, no useful purpose can be served. by abstracting the testimony. . . ......
  • Woodard v. State
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Arkansas
    • 20 Octubre 1919
    ...644; 46 Tex.Crim. 290; 65 S.W. 475; 63 Id. 317; 48 Id. 192; 31 Id. 366. 2. Mrs. Basham's testimony was incompetent and no corroboration. 101 Ark. 45; 54 Iowa 743; 55 Id. 258; 50 Id. 317; 86 Ark. 30; 126 Id. 98; 77 Id. 23; 84 Id. 67; 111 Iowa 69; 132 Id. 196; 78 Iowa 123; 110 N.Y. 188. 3. Th......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT