State v. Bowman
| Decision Date | 04 December 1917 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. WILLIAM C. BOWMAN, Appellant |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Jackson Circuit Court. -- Hon. E. E. Porterfield, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Patrick T. O'Hern, Clarence Wofford and Bert S. Kimbrell for appellant.
(1) The defendant being charged with rape upon Eva Frampton, it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of an act or acts of intercourse by defendant with Clara Parker, or of statements or admissions by defendant with reference thereto. State v. Smith, 250 Mo. 274; State v Teeter, 239 Mo. 475; State v. Vandiver, 149 Mo 502; State v. Banks, 258 Mo. 479; State v Phillips, 233 Mo. 299; State v. Hyde, 234 Mo. 200; State v. Horton, 247 Mo. 657. (2) The court erred in permitting the defendant to be cross-examined with reference to matters and things not mentioned or touched upon in his examination in chief. Sec. 5242, R. S. 1909; State v. Burgess, 259 Mo. 383; State v. Swearengin, 190 S.W. 268; State v. Kinney, 190 S.W. 306; State v. Pfeifer, 267 Mo. 23; State v. Goodwin, 195 S.W. 725. (3) The court erred in permitting the day book and ledger of Dr. Janes to be introduced in evidence and read to and examined by the jury. Childress v. Cutter, 16 Mo. 24; Morrissey v. Ferry Co., 47 Mo. 521; State v. Hamilton, 263 Mo. 298. (4) The court erred in permitting the State to introduce evidence showing that the alleged act of intercourse was committed forcibly and against the will of the prosecutrix, there being no allegation in the information that the act was committed forcibly and against the will of prosecutrix. Sec. 22, Art. 2, Constitution. (5) The court erred in refusing to instruct the jury to find the defendant not guilty at the close of all the evidence as requested by defendant, for the reason that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict. State v. Patrick, 107 Mo. 147; State v. Goodale, 210 Mo. 275; State v. Tevis, 234 Mo. 276; State v. Donnington, 246 Mo. 343; State v. Lawhorn, 250 Mo. 293.
Frank W. McAllister, Attorney-General, and E. M. Conner, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.
(1) The trial court did not commit error in allowing the State to admit evidence of acts of intercourse of the defendant with Clara Parker and statements or admissions by the defendant with reference thereto. This was allowable to show the intent or motive of defendant. State v. Thornhill, 174 Mo. 370; State v. McLaughlin, 149 Mo. 19; State v. Bailey. 190 Mo. 279; State v. Sarony, 95 Mo. 349; State v. Turley, 142 Mo. 403; State v. Phillips, 160 Mo. 503; State v. Franke, 159 Mo. 535; State v. Pennington, 124 Mo. 383; State v. Minton, 116 Mo. 605; State v. Williamson, 106 Mo. 162; State v. Toohey, 203 Mo. 678; State v. Spaugh, 200 Mo. 594; State v. Bailey, 190 Mo. 279; State v. Bolch, 136 Mo. 103; State v. Cooper, 85 Mo. 256; State v. Bayne, 88 Mo. 604; State v. Myers, 82 Mo. 558; State v. Hodges, 144 Mo. 50; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 293, 62 L.R.A. 329-335; Goresen v. Commonwealth, 99 Pa. 398; Commonwealth v. Robinson, 146 Mass. 577; Commonwealth v. Snell, 189 Mass. 22; Hawes v. State, 88 Ala. 37; Higgins v. State, 157 Ind. 57; People v. Harris, 136 N.Y. 423; Zoldoski v. State, 82 Wis. 580; Wheeler v. State, 23 Tex.App. 598; Shafner v. Commonwealth, 72 Pa. 60; Wharton's American Criminal Laws (6 Ed.), sec. 649; 3 Greenleaf on Evidence, sec. 15; Stevens, Digest of Evidence, arts. 11, 12; People v. Zucker, 154 N.Y. 770; Regina v. Cotton, 12 Cox's C. C. 400; Regina v. Geering, 18 L. J. Maj. Cas. 215; Regina v. Heesom, 14 Cox's C. C. 40; Gossenheimer v. State, 52 Ala. 313; Hobbs v. State, 75 Ala. 1. Admissions and statements of the accused are always admissible against him when freely and voluntarily made. State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 109; State v. Spaugh, 200 Mo. 596; State v. Daly, 210 Mo. 664; State v. Green, 229 Mo. 650. (2) The court did not err in permitting the defendant to be cross-examined with reference to acts of intercourse by the defendant with Clara Parker and with reference to admissions or statements made by the defendant concerning such acts of intercourse. Authorities under point one; also: State v. Barrington, 198 Mo. 85; State v. Mills, 156 Mo. 85; State v. Feeley, 194 Mo. 315; State v. Eishenhour, 132 Mo. 148; State v. Harvey, 131 Mo. 345; State v. Keener, 225 Mo. 499. (3) The court did not err in permitting the day book and ledger to be introduced in evidence and read and examined by the jury. 33 Cyc. 1473; Neill v. State, 49 Tex. Crim. App. 219; People v. Vann, 129 Cal. 118; 10 R. C. L. secs. 63, 341, 343, 350, 372; Note to 69 L.R.A. 475. (4) The court committed no error in allowing the State to show that the alleged act of intercourse was committed by force and against the will of the prosecutrix. State v. Ernest, 150 Mo. 347; State v. Allen, 174 Mo. 689.
Defendant appeals from a conviction of statutory rape. The offense was alleged to have been committed upon one Eva Frampton, a girl under the age of fifteen years, during a "joy ride" in defendant's automobile.
The defendant challenges the evidence as being insufficient to warrant a verdict of guilty.
Two other persons, Robert L. Moore, a man 33 years of age, and Clara Parker, a girl apparently older than the prosecutrix, were also in the automobile during the ride. Neither Clara Parker nor Moore testified in the case, although it appears from the record that Clara was in the court room at the time, and Moore was under arrest for the same offense against Eva Frampton as that with which defendant was charged. The girl and the defendant were the only witnesses who presented direct testimony as to what occurred.
Some important facts are undisputed. Eva Frampton's mother, who had separated from her husband when Eva was an infant, had recently moved from Wellsville, Kansas, to Kansas City. Eva had been an inmate of the House of the Good Shepherd and, only a short time before the joy ride, had come to live with her mother at the latter's home in Kansas City. While at the House of the Good Shepherd she had made the acquaintance of Clara Parker. After coming to her mother in Kansas City, some time in May, 1915, while on an errand for her mother, Eva met Clara on the street and was invited by the latter to take an automobile ride that afternoon. Later the two met by appointment at Fourteenth Street and Broadway, and after waiting a few minutes the defendant, Bowman, and Moore came along in Bowman's "Hudson Six." The two girls got in the rear seat, the two men sitting in front, and the joy ride began at about 3:30 in the afternoon.
The defendant was a married man forty-six years of age, had several children and ran a prosperous restaurant. He had several hundred dollars on his person at the time and paid the expense of the escapade. Eva had never seen either of the two men before, and Bowman, who had made the appointment for the ride with Clara Parker, did not know that Eva was to accompany them.
They drove a few blocks when the four got out and entered a side room or hall adjacent a saloon, where they took several rounds of whiskey. They then proceeded to another place, the precise nature of which does not appear, where they again went in and took drinks. They stopped at several saloons where drinks of whiskey, beer and cocktail were brought out to them by Moore. Besides, they took along bottles of whiskey and prepared cocktails of which they partook as they rode They finally turned the automobile toward Independence, all of them being more or less drunk. The two men had been drinking before they met the girls. After the visit to the first saloon Clara Parker got in the front seat with defendant, and Moore sat behind with the Frampton girl. The party arrived at Independence before dark and stopped at the home of Mrs. Yetter, Moore's mother, where they all went in and remained for a few minutes. When they continued their ride Mrs. Yetter and her husband accompanied them in the car. They had not been driving long until the car got stuck in the mud. Mrs. Yetter and her husband then left the automobile, intercepted a passing buggy and left for home in it. The four joy-riders remained in the car and, after repeated efforts to extricate it from the mud, it was finally dislodged and started on the return journey to Kansas City, where it arrived at three o'clock in the morning. It had been in the mud several hours. After the car had been in the mud for some time Clara Parker left it, probably going to a street car. Eva was left alone with the two men. During the ride and particularly after the car was stalled, "improper familiarities," as defendant's counsel expresses it, were indulged in by the joy-riders, but defendant claims the crime charged was not committed by him.
When the car was driven back to Kansas City, Moore got out at an ice plant where he was employed, and defendant drove on with Eva Frampton, left her at a hotel and gave her two dollars to pay for her lodging. She remained there the remainder of that night, the next day, and the following night, and then was taken home by a man staying in the hotel. When she reached home the family and the police were excited about her disappearance, and the defendant was already under arrest.
In the facts as above stated, as well as in many unimportant details of the ride, the defendant and the prosecutrix are in substantial agreement.
There was a sharp conflict in the evidence as to the girl's age. Eva asserted that she was forcibly ravished by both men by Moore while on the way to Independence, and again after the car became stalled, and by Bowman after Clara Parker left the automobile. The defendant stoutly denied that he committed the act or even...
To continue reading
Request your trial