Smith v. State
Decision Date | 14 January 1896 |
Citation | 108 Ala. 1,19 So. 306 |
Parties | SMITH v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Appeal from city court of Montgomery; T. M. Arrington, Judge.
Bob Smith was convicted of the crime of incest, and appeals. Affirmed.
Wm. C Fitts, Atty. Gen., for the State.
Appellant was indicted and convicted of the statutory crime of incest committed by one act of sexual intercourse with his daughter. The evidence tended to show that the daughter did not consent to the act, but that the defendant accomplished his purpose by force or by putting her in fear. Several charges were requested for the defendant which raise the question whether this offense can be committed unless the parties mutually consent to the act. Of this point it is said in 10 Am. & Eng Enc. Law, p. 341: This is an open question in Alabama. There is nothing in our statute defining the offense to prevent us from taking ground with what is said in the text quoted to be the weight of authority; but, to the contrary, every element of the crime as denounced in our law may well exist as against one party to the sexual act though the other did not consent thereto, and though the act was only accomplished by the man by such force or coercion brought to bear on the woman as would render the man guilty also of rape. Code, § 4013. And we see no reason why in such case the man should not be convicted of incest upon or by analogy to the general principle that a conviction may be had for any less offense included in a greater one. We therefore hold that the several charges requested by the defendant below were properly refused.
The charge given at the instance of the state to the effect that if the deed was accomplished by the use of force, or that the woman allowed the defendant to have intercourse with her...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Hopkins
...or fornication is determined by his conduct and the consequences thereof are not avoided by the innocence of his victim (Smith v. State, 108 Ala. 1, 19 So. 306; McCaskill v. State, 55 Fla. 117, 45 So. 843, 844-845; People v. Barnes, 2 Idaho 161, 9 P. 532, 534-535; People v. Arendarczyk, 367......
-
Gaston v. State
...for incest. 60 Am. St. R. 35. A party may be convicted of incest though he accomplish his purpose by such means as would make it rape. 19 So. 306; 54 Am. St. R. 140. The crime of may exist, although the consent of the female to the act was never obtained. 90 Cal. 359; 119 Cal. 456; 151 Cal.......
-
Mccaskill v. State
... ... 845] ... the less incestuous. If the prosecuting authority elects to ... indict for incest, rather than for rape, evidence [55 Fla ... 123] that some force was used by the defendant in ... accomplishing his purpose is admissible. People v ... Kaiser, 119 Cal. 456, 51 P. 702; Smith v ... State, 108 Ala. 1, 19 So. 306, 54 Am. St. Rep. 140; ... Whidby v. State, 121 Ga. 588, 49 S.E. 811; ... Porath v. State, 90 Wis. 527, 63 N.W. 1061, 48 Am ... St. Rep. 954; State v. Chambers, 87 Iowa, 1, 53 N.W ... 1090, 43 Am. St. Rep. 349 ... The ... prosecuting witness, ... ...
-
Teel v. State
...Wharton on Cr. Law, §§ 440, 1751; 113 N.W. 1048; 26 S.W. 504; 95 Ky. 632; 74 Mo. 385; 17 Tex.App. 452; 90 Wis. 527; 2 Idaho 161; 108 Ala. 1; 106 Ind. 163; Mass. 577. Where she did not consent to the intercourse, her uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to convict appellant and she is not ......