Skaggs v. State

• Decision Date: 19 October 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 346,88 Ark. 62
• Parties: SKAGGS v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

113 S.W. 346

88 Ark. 62

SKAGGS v. STATE

Supreme Court of Arkansas

October 19, 1908

Appeal from Sebastian Circuit Court, Fort Smith District; Daniel Hon, Judge; affirmed.

STATEMENT BY THE COURT.

Elijah Skaggs, Mrs. Margaret Irene Taylor, her brother, Mr. Todd and a Mr. Allen came to Fort Smith in May, 1908, from Dallas Texas, in and about which place these parties had resided for a number of years. When they reached Fort Smith, they went to a hotel and had dinner together. After they came out of the hotel, the suggestion was made that they see the town, and she proposed going to the park. Her brother proposed that he and Mr. Allen go together, and that she and Skaggs go together. This was agreed to. Her brother and Mr. Allen went somewhere else, and she and Skaggs got on a car and went to the park, some distance from the city. They walked around the park for some time, and then crawled out of the rear fence and went some little distance into the woods. What occurred there will be referred to later.

She and Skaggs returned from the park on the same car, but not sitting together; and immediately upon arrival in the city she went to the mayor's office and seemed rather excited. The city clerk told her the mayor was out, and asked her if there was anything she wanted, and she remarked that a rape had been committed. He told her that the mayor had nothing to do with it, and sent her to Sam Edmondson, a justice of the peace, to whom she then went and made complaint. He went out with her and Mr. Todd, her brother, and two officers. They went to the back end of the park and saw the tracks where a man and woman had walked, and the imprint of the heels of the woman's shoes were similar to those worn by Mrs. Taylor. They found the place where these tracks led to, and it was trampled down and the appearance of the ground indicated that persons had been scuffling there. Mrs. Taylor exhibited a torn undergarment.

Skaggs was arrested, and had a preliminary trial before said magistrate. His conduct in said court was thus afterwards described by the justice of the peace (and Skaggs did not deny it):

"Q. I will ask you if you arraigned the defendant and advised him of the crime with which he was charged?

"A. I did.

"Q. What was his answer?

"A. His answer was that he was guilty of rape, and he was guilty of murder, and I remarked to him if he wanted an attorney and he said he did not; that he wanted to suffer the penalty of the law for what he had done; and I said to him that that was a very grave matter; that if he entered a plea of guilty in the case the penalty was hanging, and I said, 'My friend, don't you want a lawyer?' and he said 'No, I am not only guilty of rape, but I am guilty of murder,' and I said I did not know of anybody being killed, how could you be guilty of murder, and he said 'I am guilty of the crime for which I am accused; I am guilty of murder, because I have taken that woman's honor', and pointed to Mrs. Taylor."

Mrs Taylor testified in said examining court that when they reached the place where the scuffle was indicated he had grabbed her, and she fought him, but he was strong, and overcame her, and ravished her, tearing her undergarment in order to accomplish his purpose; and that she immediately came back made complaint as stated. She repeated this same testimony before the grand jury, and Skaggs was indicted for rape. While he was in jail, she visited him four times. There was testimony that the first time she visited him he offered her $ 500 to withdraw her charge, and she became very angry thereat, but later held long private conversations with him.

Skaggs was put on trial, and the State introduced Mrs. Taylor as the first witness. She testified that she had known Skaggs for four years, during which time he was preaching the gospel that she believed him to be the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, and Elijah the Prophet; and that she was a disciple of his; that before they came to Fort Smith they made a covenant; the King was to restore all things, and she was willing to be a sacrifice to him; that they went to the park, to have the appearance of having committed an offense which he did not commit, so that he would be hung, in order that all men might have glory and peace and honor.

In his testimony he was more explicit as to his covenant. He says that he and Mrs. Taylor agreed that he should die and rise on the third day; that he should die by hanging; that he knows he is King of Kings and Lord of Lords; that he is Elijah, King of the Gentiles, the same as Christ was King of the Jews; that he wanted to be hung, and on the third day rise and redeem the world; that he did not want to murder any one, and in order to accomplish the purpose it was agreed that a rape should be simulated.

Mrs. Taylor testified that Skaggs did not ravish her physically, that the rape was a spiritual one. She admitted that her former testimony before the justice of the peace and before the grand jury made out a charge of rape against him; but said that the wrong interpretation had been placed upon it; that she meant a spiritual, and not a carnal, rape. She says she tore the garment herself, and that he had not touched her.

The State proved her former testimony, which she admitted; proved the appearance of a scuffle and the torn garment, and her excited and almost hysterical manner immediately after the occurrence; and also proved that in the trial before the justice of the peace Skaggs in open court confessed that he had raped her, and said that he wanted to be hung therefor.

Other testimony was adduced, showing admissions which he had made and which tended to prove that his conduct was actuated by a carnal, and not a spiritual, mind, and that he had accomplished a physical rape. In his testimony he admitted practically all of the testimony adduced by the State, but claimed that he had committed this spiritual rape for the purpose of being hung and rising on the third day and redeeming the world. He said that he had consulted a lawyer before he went to the park (and this was also proved by the lawyer), to ascertain the punishment for the crime of rape in this State. He averred his readiness to be hung then, but said that he had been told by his best friends that the jury would not hang him, and that if he pleaded guilty they would send him to the penitentiary, and he did not want to go to the penitentiary; that he would rather be hung than go to the penitentiary.

The defendant introduced the testimony of a deputy constable, who said he saw Mrs. Taylor and Skaggs at the park. He said he saw them turn towards the south side of the park, and they stayed about thirty minutes or a little longer; that he does not think they were out of his sight more than two minutes. The defendant did not touch her while in his sight. He was within about thirty or forty feet of them when they were south of the park. He did not go out where they claimed they were. He says that he did not stop at the place where the scuffle was alleged by her to have occurred. He says that she was using profane language and cursing Skaggs. Mrs. Taylor was recalled and denied that she saw this officer, and denied using the language which he attributed to her. This was substantially all the testimony in the case. The jury convicted him of assault with intent to rape, and assessed his punishment at twenty-one years in the penitentiary. Skaggs has appealed, and the Attorney General confesses error, and the prosecuting attorney of the 12th circuit files a brief, insisting that there was no error.

Judgment affirmed.

Rowe & Rowe, for appellant.

Wm. F. Kirby, Attorney General and Dan'l. Taylor, assistant, for appellee.

Error is confessed because:

1. The trial judge, during the progress of the trial and while defendant's counsel was making his argument to the jury, left the court room, absenting himself therefrom about two minutes. This is reversible error. 77 Ark. 112.

2. A trial judge is prohibited from instructing with regard to matters of fact, or from telling the jury what would be sufficient to convict, or what facts would warrant a verdict of guilty. The fourth instruction is erroneous. 83 Ark. 192; 85 Ark. 138.

3. The bitter denunciations of appellant by the prosecuting attorney in his opening statement to the jury were of such character that the prejudicial effect thereof could not be eradicated by merely sustaining the objections of defendant's counsel to such remarks. Confession of error would not be based on this alone, had the State's attorney not, at the conclusion of the evidence, although appellant had not put his character in issue, demanded in the hearing of the jury that he be allowed to introduce evidence to show that appellant was a man of bad character, a gambler of the worst type and unworthy of belief. 66 Ark. 16; 33 Barb. 229; 35 Mich. 371; 71 Ark. 415; Id. 427; 58 Ark. 368; 63 Ark. 176; 72 Ark. 461.

4. The evidence is weak and unreliable--not a scintilla of testimony to show an assault with intent to rape. All of the incriminating evidence shows conclusively that the crime, if any was in fact committed, was that of rape. Appellant was either guilty of the crime of rape, or of no crime at all.

A. A. McDonald, prosecuting attorney 12th circuit, for appellee, resisting confession of error.

I. The fourth instruction is a correct statement of the law, and is applicable. It does not fall in the class with the instructions criticised in the cases cited by the Attorney General. This instruction leaves it to the jury to find from the evidence whether or not a confession was made, whether or not proof was made that the offense was committed, then if from the evidence they found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the confession was...