State v. Brundidge
| Citation | 214 N.W. 569,204 Iowa 111 |
| Decision Date | 01 July 1927 |
| Docket Number | 37933 |
| Parties | STATE OF IOWA, Appellee, v. EDWIN BRUNDIDGE, Appellant |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Appeal from Jones District Court.--F. L. ANDERSON, Judge.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of conviction of statutory rape upon the person of a female under the age of consent.
Reversed.
Edward J. Dahms, for appellant.
John Fletcher, Attorney-general, and Neill Garrett, Assistant Attorney-general, for appellee.
The prosecutrix was Theola Hunter, a girl 13 years of age. The indictment charged the offense as having been committed on the 10th day of February, 1926. The evidence for the State was that such offense was committed at the home of the defendant. At the time of the alleged offense, the defendant was 53 years of age. He was a barber by trade, but maintained no shop other than his home. As such, he performed services to a limited patronage, who came to his home. His family consisted of himself and wife. They occupied as their home a one-story house, comprising four rooms. These were a kitchen front room, and two bedrooms, opening from the front room. The defendant was the uncle by marriage of the prosecutrix who daily attended the public schools. Her home was a mile distant. The home of the defendant was on the way between the home of prosecutrix and the public school which she attended. On her way to and from school, she habitually stopped for a brief time at the Brundidge home, both morning and evening. Another girl, Viola Miner, a witness for the State, whose home was near the home of the prosecutrix, habitually did likewise. The two girls sometimes came together, and sometimes separately; but each of them habitually made the stop. Viola had a little sister, Ilene, who attended the kindergarten, and was dismissed daily at 11:30 A. M. At that hour, she proceeded to the Brundidge home, and remained there until about 4:30, when Viola would arrive.
On the afternoon of February 10, 1926, Mrs Stickney, another witness for the State, was at the Brundidge home. With her were her husband and Mrs. Lienen. These three and Mrs. Brundidge left the home shortly before 4 o'clock, to go to a neighboring home, one mile away, intending to be gone a very brief time. Shortly before 4:30, and at about her usual time, Theola (prosecutrix) arrived at the Brundidge home. At that time, no one was present in the home save the defendant. He was lying on the bed in the front bedroom. Upon her arrival, he arose and came into the front room. She asked him to cut her hair, to which request he assented. He went into the other bedroom, usually occupied by his wife, to obtain towels for that purpose. The prosecutrix followed him. Thereupon, Viola Miner came through the kitchen and into the front room. The defendant came out of the bedroom, carrying the towels, and was followed by the prosecutrix, who had not yet removed her hat or coat. The prosecutrix proceeded into the chair in the kitchen, and the defendant proceeded to cut her hair. Viola had come for her sister, Ilene, but Ilene had already been taken in the auto by Mrs. Brundidge and the Stickneys and Mrs. Lienen. Within five or ten minutes after her arrival, Viola left for home, leaving Theola in the barber chair. It was after the departure of Viola, and after the completion of the "hair-cut," that the offense is said to have been committed.
The important question presented to us, upon the record, is whether there was any statutory corroboration of the prosecutrix. Mrs. Brundidge and her company returned within a few moments after the departure of the prosecutrix. This appears from the testimony of the State, as well as from that of the defendant. The State emphasizes two or three circumstances, and relies on these for the statutory corroboration.
The first of these pertains to the alleged locking of the front door. Viola Miner testified, in terms, that, when she came to the house, the front door was locked, and that she came in by way of the kitchen door. The prosecutrix testified that she came in through the front door. The State claims an inference, therefore, that, after the prosecutrix had come in through the front door, the defendant must have locked the same; that, if he did so, he was preparing or creating an opportunity for the commission of the offense. The testimony of Viola Miner, however, taken as a whole, indicates nothing more than that she tried to open the front door, and could not, and therefore assumed that it was locked. She testified, also, that she usually came in through the kitchen door, and not the front door, and that she was forbidden to come in through the front door when it was muddy. The claim that the door was locked is...
To continue reading
Request your trial