State v. Arnold
| Decision Date | 31 January 1874 |
| Citation | 55 Mo. 89 |
| Parties | STATE OF MISSOURI, Respondent, v. JOHN W. ARNOLD, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Franklin Circuit Court.
Seay & Kiskaddon, for Appellant.
H. Clay Ewing, for Respondent.
The defendant was indicted and convicted for defiling a female under the age of eighteen years, who it was alleged, was confided to his care under the statute (1 Wagn. Stat., 500, § 9), which provides, “If any guardian of any female under the age of eighteen years, or any other person to whose care or protection any such female shall have been confided, shall defile her by carnally knowing her,” he shall be punished, &c. A technical objection has been urged against the indictment, but it is, perhaps, substantially sufficient after verdict, under the very liberal system prevailing with us in reference to practice in criminal cases. (2 Wagn. Stat., 1090, § 27.) But we are of the opinion, however, that the judgment must be reversed, because the court erred in admitting illegal testimony, and because there was a total want of testimony to sustain the verdict.
The only evidence of any importance, given on behalf of the State, was that of the female--who, it appears, was defiled--and that of her father. By this evidence, it is shown, that the girl was the sister-in-law of the defendant. She testified that on the 11th day of May, 1871, her sister, defendant's wife, came to her father's house aud told her father, that defendant wanted him to let her go over to defendant's and help him plant corn that day; that her father gave his consent, and that she accordingly went, and that whilst assisting that day in corn planting, defendant had carnal knowledge of her. The evidence of the father corroborated that of the girl, and was of the same import.
There was an objection interposed against admitting testimony as to what defendant's wife said, but this objection was overruled. Nothing is clearer than that it is incompetent for the wife to give evidence against the husband, except in the case where she is the immediate prosecutrix for some injury threatened or done to her person. If she herself is not a competent witness, it follows, that her declarations as to what her husband said must also be inadmissible.
Allowing the girl to go and work for the defendant in helping him to plant corn, was not confiding her to his care and protection, within the meaning of the statute. The statute declares, that if any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Kollenborn
...to testify for or against the other, generally, whether willing or unwilling to do so. State v. Willis, 119 Mo. 485, 24 S.W. 1008; State v. Arnold, 55 Mo. 89; State v. Evans, 138 Mo. 116, 39 S.W. 462; State v. Witherspoon, 231 Mo. 706, 133 S.W. 323. This disqualification was based upon: (a)......
-
State v. Anderson
...too late when made for the first time on a motion for a new trial. State v. Marshall, 36 Mo. 400; State v. Connell, 49 Mo. 282; State v. Arnold, 55 Mo. 89, and cases cited. Defendants cannot object to the composition or organization of the grand jury. R. S., 1879, sec. 1772; State v. Pitt, ......
-
State v. Cooper
...... gestae; that the testimony concerning it was hearsay; and. that the State sought to [358 Mo. 273] identify the chair. indirectly through her hearsay statement when Sec. 4081. precluded its identification by her direct testimony over. objection. Consult: State v. Arnold", 55 Mo. 89, 91;. 32 C.J.S. 45, Secs. 417-421; 20 Am. Jur. 564, Secs. 670, 674,. 678. . . Following. the Fair, Martin, Kester and other cases, supra, the judgment. is reversed and the cause remanded. Westhues and. Barrett, CC., concur. . . \xC2"......
-
State v. Kavanaugh
...was never in the care, custody, or employment of defendant. State v. Sibley, 132 Mo. 104, dissenting opinion of Judge Sherwood; State v. Arnold, 55 Mo. 89. statutes should receive a strict interpretation as against the state. 1 Blackstone's Com., side pp. 87, 88; U.S. v. Wilterberger, 5 Whe......