Rucker v. State

• Citation: 90 S.W. 151
• Parties: RUCKER v. STATE.
• Decision Date: 04 November 1905
• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas

90 S.W. 151

RUCKER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

November 4, 1905.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Washington County; John N. Tillman, Judge.

Wallace Rucker was convicted of obtaining carnal knowledge under a false promise of marriage, and appeals. Affirmed.

Appellant Wallace Rucker was indicted by the grand jury of Benton county for the crime of obtaining carnal knowledge by virtue of a false promise of marriage, and, on change of venue to Washington county, was tried and convicted; his punishment being fixed by the jury at five years' confinement in the penitentiary, and a fine of $100.

Rice & Rice and Walker & Walker, for appellant. Robert L. Rogers, Atty. Gen., and McGill & Lindsey, for the State.

McCULLOCH, J. (after stating the facts).

1. The indictment does not allege the previous chastity of the seduced female, and appellant demurred to the indictment on that ground. This court recently held in the case of Caldwell v. State, 73 Ark. 130, 83 S. W. 929, that, in a prosecution for this offense, it is unnecessary for the state to allege or prove the previous chastity of the female, but that the defendant can show, as a defense, that she was not previously chaste. We are urged by learned counsel for appellant to overrule that decision and hold to the contrary, but we entertain no doubt of the correctness of the principles therein announced, and the same are now adhered to.

2. Appellant filed his motion for continuance in the Benton circuit court which was overruled, and a change of venue was then granted upon his petition, thus postponing the trial for about a month. When the case was called for trial in the Washington circuit court he again presented a motion for continuance, so that he could procure the testimony of absent witnesses. The court overruled the motion, and that ruling is assigned as error. It appears that both of the absent witnesses were out of the state, and the circuit judge had previously in vacation, upon application of appellant, made an order allowing him to take the depositions of the witnesses, and one deposition was taken by appellant pursuant to this order. No reason is given why the depositions of other witnesses were not taken. Continuances of cases are matters within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we see no abuse of the discretion in this case. Puckett v. State, 71 Ark. 62, 70 S. W. 1041.

Appellant in his motion for continuance stated as further grounds that the prosecuting witness (the seduced female) "had long been subject to some nervous malady causing hysterics or mental delirium, and had recently suffered an attack from same, and was not, at the time of calling of this case for trial, recovered from such attack; that the importance of the case would necessitate her remaining on...