State v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 24 November 1908
• Citation: 113 S.W. 1123,214 Mo. 290
• Parties: STATE v. BALDWIN.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

113 S.W. 1123

214 Mo. 290

STATE v. BALDWIN.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 24, 1908.

1. ABDUCTION (§ 5) — INFORMATION — SUFFICIENCY.

An information charging accused with taking a certain female under the age of 18 years from her father, he having charge of her person, for the purpose of concubinage, was sufficient.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1169) — APPEAL — HARMLESS ERROR — PREJUDICIAL EFFECT.

In a prosecution for abduction, the admission of testimony by the girl's father that he did not consent to her going away with accused, even if immaterial, was not reversible.

3. ABDUCTION (§ 9) — EVIDENCE — ADMISSIBILITY.

In an abduction prosecution, testimony of the girl's father that he did not consent to her going away with accused was competent.

4. ABDUCTION (§ 12) — CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

In a prosecution for abduction, accused's admission that he served a penitentiary sentence prior to this trial, without stating for what crime, together with court and penitentiary records showing that one by the same name had been convicted, and had served sentence for rape, was sufficient to sustain a finding of that fact against accused.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1169) — APPEAL — HARMLESS ERROR — EVIDENCE.

Where, in a prosecution for abduction, accused admitted that he had theretofore been convicted of an offense, without stating its nature, and the court and penitentiary records showed that one by the same name had previously been convicted of rape, and had served sentence, and it was not denied at trial that accused was the same person, the admission of the court and penitentiary records, without first identifying accused as the person referred to therein, was not reversible error.

6. ABDUCTION (§ 2) — CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — DEFENSES — CHARACTER OF PROSECUTRIX.

In a prosecution for taking away a female under 18 for the purpose of concubinage, that the prosecuting witness was of unchaste character, and had previously had intercourse with accused, was not a defense.

7. ABDUCTION (§ 16) — CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — INSTRUCTIONS — "CONCUBINAGE."

In a prosecution for taking a female under 18 years old from her father for the purpose of concubinage, an instruction was proper that the word "concubinage" meant sexual cohabitation with an unmarried female, and if accused took the girl from her father for the purpose of cohabiting with her for any length of time more than a single act of sexual intercourse, he is guilty, but if he did not take her from her father for that purpose, or if she was 18 years old or over, he is not guilty.

8. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1204) — HABITUAL CRIMINALS — VERDICT — SUFFICIENCY.

In a prosecution under an information alleging that accused had served a penitentiary sentence for rape, and charging him with taking from her father, for the purpose of concubinage, a female under 18 years old, a verdict finding accused guilty of "habitual criminal," and of taking away a female, etc., as charged, while informal, was not reversible error; the verdict, fairly considered, meaning that accused had been convicted and sentenced, etc., as charged.

9. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1175) — APPEAL — HARMLESS ERROR.

In a prosecution for taking a female away from her father for purposes of concubinage, error in not requiring a finding that accused was not married to the girl was not reversible, where accused practically admitted that they were not married, and no issue was raised as to their marriage.

10. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1159) — APPEAL — VERDICT — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

On a criminal trial, where there is substantial testimony to support the verdict, it will not be disturbed because the evidence is conflicting.

11. ABDUCTION (§ 12) — CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

In a prosecution for taking a female under 18 years of age away from her father for the purpose of concubinage, evidence held to warrant a conviction.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Daniel D. Fisher, Judge.

William Baldwin was convicted of statutory abduction, and he appealed. Affirmed.

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction against the defendant in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis. On the 15th day of July, 1907, the assistant circuit attorney of the city of St. Louis filed an information, duly verified, in the circuit court of said city, charging the defendant, first, with having served a term in the penitentiary for the offense of rape, and then proceeded to make the charge of taking one Florence Hamann, a female under the age of 18 years, from her father, having charge of her person, for the purpose of concubinage. August 19, 1907, the defendant was duly arraigned upon the information, and entered his plea of not guilty. The cause was then continued to the October term of said court, and on the 9th day of October, 1907, the defendant was put upon his trial. The evidence, upon the part of the state, developed at the trial tended to prove substantially the following state of facts: On the 21st day of May, 1907, Florence Hamann, a girl in short dresses, 15 years of age, was residing at 207 Douchouquette street, in the city of St. Louis, with her father, William Hamann, who had legal charge of her person. On the morning of said day, the girl Florence left her father's home in search of employment. On Chouteau avenue, in said city, while in company with two other girls, casual acquaintances, Lillie Scharfenberg and Finnie Dishbing, she met defendant, a stranger to her and to her companions. Defendant, under pretext that he could secure a position in a telephone office for her, induced Florence to go with him. He took her to a room in the Clover Leaf Hotel in said city. Arriving in the room, Florence screamed, but defendant threatened her, and put a bed against the door. He kept her in the room about two hours, during which time he had sexual intercourse with her. After leaving the Clover Leaf Hotel, defendant kept Florence in his company throughout the day. In the afternoon he secured a room for himself "and wife" at the boarding house of Mrs. Beamer, 715 South Broadway in said city, and he borrowed a bucket from Mrs. Beamer for coffee. Defendant and Florence spent the night together in said room, having sexual intercourse several times during the night. Mrs. Beamer did not know that the girl was with defendant in the room until next day. Defendant, upon his lawful relation to Florence being challenged that day by Mrs. Beamer, first asserted that the girl was his wife, and admitted that he had slept with her the preceding night. Later he admitted that Florence was not his wife, but claimed he had found her on the street, and had given her shelter at Mrs. Beamer's house as a matter of charity. He proposed to give Mrs. Beamer $50 with which to buy clothes for the girl and find her a job. Mrs. Beamer kept the girl overnight. Next afternoon defendant, in company with a young man called "Busybody," came back and announced to Mrs. Beamer that he had made arrangements to get the money. Defendant and "Busybody" took Mrs. Beamer and the girl to the office of Mr. Parker, defendant's lawyer, who represented himself as a doctor. Defendant said he wished to have the girl examined to see that he had done nothing wrong with her. She was closeted there in a private office with the "doctor" for some time, during which time, according to the testimony of the girl, the "doctor" examined her and had intercourse with her. When the "doctor" came out of the private office, he said he would write a receipt for the money for Mrs. Beamer to sign. When the receipt was presented to Mrs. Beamer for her signature, she refused to sign it, for the reason that it appeared to be a written demand for the payment of money to avoid prosecution. Mrs. Beamer then went on home, and never saw Florence again until the day of the trial. Mrs. Beamer notified the police. The day before the date of the crime Mrs. Beamer had bought her said boarding house. Among the boarders whom she received from her predecessor was "Busybody," whom she summarily dismissed the night after the incident at Parker's office. After Mrs. Beamer left the police, defendant told Florence that her father had telephoned he was going to kill her, and he told the boy "Busybody" to take her out of the office. "Busybody" took her to the house of a Mr. Moore, from which place he immediately took her to defendant's stable. Shortly after they arrived at the stable, Baldwin appeared there and took her up into the stable loft, where he kept her about two days. During the two days Baldwin did not stay with her upstairs. He sent food up to her, and threatened her harm if she came downstairs. Saturday, May 24, 1907, one Anderson came to Florence at the stable, told her Baldwin had been arrested, and that she should leave. She had never before met Anderson. He took her to East St. Louis, thence to Chicago, and thence to Grand Haven, Mich., where he married her. After more than a week's absence from St. Louis, Anderson and Florence returned there. Florence admitted that on two occasions before she met defendant she had sexual intercourse in East St. Louis with a boy named Eddy. She said that her husband, Anderson, communicated to her a sexual disease. The testimony of Florence was fully corroborated by the testimony of Lillie Scharfenberg, Amelia Beamer, and her father, in so far as their connection with the facts of the case extended. It was shown by the father that he did not know of or consent to his daughter being with defendant. Court records of the trial court, copy of judgment, with sheriff's return, and certified copy of records of the Missouri penitentiary were introduced in evidence, showing that defendant was convicted of the crime of rape in said court in October, 1899, and that he served a five-year term therefor, which ended under the three-fourths rule July 1, 1903, when he was discharged.

Defendant, in his own behalf, testified that he met...