State v. Bradford

• Decision Date: 07 November 1921
• Docket Number: 22068
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. BRADFORD

89 So. 767

126 Miss. 868

STATE v. BRADFORD

No. 22068

Supreme Court of Mississippi

November 7, 1921

beer v Railroad Co., 156 N. Y., 474. Railroad Co. v. Swank, 105

RAPE. In statutory rape prosecution, where prosecutrix's testimony is uncorroborated court should direct acquittal.

Chapter 171, Laws 1914 (Hemingway's Code, sections 1093 to 1095 inclusive), (defines) and fixes the punishment of a new character of rape, theretofore unknown to either the common law or statutes of this state, in that it provides that, if any person shall have carnal knowledge of an unmarried female between the ages of twelve and eighteen, of previous chaste character, though she consent, he shall be punished (the jury fixing it in their verdict) either by a fine of not exceeding five hundred dollars or imprisonment in the county jail not longer than six months, or by both, or imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years. And it further provides that there shall be no conviction on the uncorroborated testimony of the injured female; therefore, in a case where the testimony of the female stands alone unsupported by any other evidence, it is the duty of the trial court to direct a verdict of acquittal of the defendant.

HON. D M. GRAHAM, Judge.

APPEAL from circuit court of Harrison county, HON. D. M. GRAHAM, Judge.

Paul Bradford was acquitted of statutory rape, and the state appeals. Affirmed.

Affirmed.

H. Cassedy Holden, special assistant attorney-general, for the state.

The appellant was indicted at the May, 1921, term of the circuit court of Harrison county. He was charged with the violation of the age of consent law (sections, 1093, 1094 and 1095, Hemingway's Code). To sustain the charge, the state had only one witness, the prosecutrix. Her testimony was not corroborated; for this failure to corroborate the prosecuting witness, the lower court sustained a motion to exclude the evidence of the state and for a peremptory instruction for the defendant. The defendant was, accordingly, discharged. This appeal was taken by the district attorney in response to the demand made upon him by a mass meeting of ladies living along the Gulf Coast.

Section 1094, Hemingway's Code, specifically provides that no person shall be convicted of the crime above mentioned upon the uncorroborated testimony of the injured female. It would appear, therefore, that the lower court acted properly in sustaining the motion of the defendant for a peremptory instruction, and in discharging the defendant from custody. Several of the states have similar provisions in their statutes requiring corroboration of the prosecuting witness in such cases. So far as can be ascertained no attack has ever been made upon the constitutionality of such statutes.

The case is therefore submitted in the light of the statutes mentioned above.

J. L. Taylor, for appellee.

The statement of facts as given by the attorney-general is absolutely correct in every detail. Section 1094, Hemingway's Code, provides that no person shall be convicted of the crime of violating the age of consent upon the uncorroborated testimony of the injured female. There was no sort of corroboration at all in any way so that it is manifest that the trial judge had to give the peremptory instruction discharging the defendant, Paul Bradford.

Inasmuch as the appeal seems to have been taken as a result of a mass meeting of the ladies of Biloxi, Mississippi, wherein the trial court was the victim of the severe criticism because of the discharge of his duty under the law, that in all fairness to the court that a written opinion should be written in this case, showing that the trial judge followed the law, and that these good ladies might be advised of the same.

I submit that under the law and the evidence the trial court could not have done anything else without stultifying himself than to have given the peremptory instruction; and that the case should accordingly be affirmed.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

The appellee, Paul Bradford, was indicted, tried, and acquitted in the circuit court of Harrison county of the charge that (quoting from the indictment) --

"On or about the 15th day of September, 1919, then and there being a male person older than Verna Vancourt, did unlawfully, willfully, and feloniously have carnal knowledge of and carnally know, by having sexual intercourse with, the said Verna Vancourt, an unmarried female person of previous chaste character, younger than he, and over twelve years and under eighteen years of age."

At the conclusion of the testimony for the state, on motion of appellee's attorneys, the evidence for the state was by the court ruled out, and the jury directed to return a verdict of not guilty for the appellee, which they did, and judgment of the court was entered accordingly, from which the state prosecutes this appeal. This action of the court was based on the ground that there was no evidence tending to show the guilt of appellee except that of the prosecutrix, Verna Vancourt, which the statute under which the prosecution was had (chapter 171, Laws of 1914; Hemingway's Code, sections 1093, 1094) declares to be insufficient. The petition for appeal by the district attorney on behalf of the state, after reciting the action of the trial court in excluding the evidence for the state, directing the jury to return a verdict of not guilty, and the rendition of the judgment discharging appellee, proceeds in this language:

"And the state of Mississippi, feeling aggrieved at said judgment of the court, and in view of the further fact that the ladies along the Gulf Coast of Mississippi in mass meeting assembled have, since the rendition of said judgment, requested the district attorney to appeal the said cause to the supreme court, and being desirous of having the supreme court decide the question of law presented in said cause, the state cloth hereby, through its district attorney, pray for an appeal."

The indictment against the appellee was returned at the May term, 1921, of the court, at which term the trial was had. The indictment avers that the crime charged was committed on or about the 15th of September, 1919. It developed in the trial, on appellee's motion to quash the indictment (which was overruled by the court), that at the same term at which this indictment was found, on the testimony of the prosecutrix, Verna Vancourt, another was also found and returned on her testimony against A. O. Bourdon, charging him with having carnal knowledge of her on or about the 16th of December, 1920, in violation of said statute.

Only two witnesses testified on behalf of the state, the prosecutrix and J. S. Sablich. The former testified in substance as follows: That the crime charged was committed by the appellee one Sunday afternoon about the 1st of October 1919; that on the 28th of October, 1919, she was sixteen years of age; that her home at the time was in the city of Biloxi; that on that afternoon, about four-thirty o'clock, she was passing Grant's drug store in said city, where she saw appellee seated in his car--using her language, "one of his father's closed-in limousines;" thereupon she stopped, and appellee asked her...