State v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 11 December 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 29795.,29795. |
| Citation | 22 S.W.2d 645 |
| Parties | THE STATE v. CLEO CAMPBELL, Appellant. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Clark Circuit Court. — Hon. Walter A. Higbee, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Jayne, Jayne & Jayne and Charles Hiller, for appellant.
(1) The information should state sufficient facts that it can be determined from its face that defendant is liable to punishment if all the alleged facts are proven. That is the only reason for the rule that requires the information to allege facts that avoid the statute of limitations when the crime is charged to have been committed at a date when ordinarily the statute of limitations would bar the prosecution. The information in this case by charging that the crime was committed on the "12th day of August" (without stating any year) did not state all the facts necessary to determine whether the defendant was liable to punishment. State v. Colvin, 284 Mo. 195. (2) It is an essential element of the crime that the prosecuting witness be unmarried. There must be proof of this fact. Sec. 3259, R.S. 1919. (3) The information charged the crime to have been committed on August 12th; the proof was that it was on August 15, 1916. An alibi was proven. There was no attempt to amend the information and charge some other date. The court by Instruction 2 should not have given the jury permission to go back for three years and find defendant guilty "at any time." (4) The prosecuting witness was not sufficiently corroborated as to the promise of marriage, and being contradicted by her own written letters the court should have directed a verdict of acquittal, or granted defendant a new trial. Sec. 4029, R.S. 1919.
Stratton Shartel, Attorney-General, and Ray Weightman, Assistant Attorney-General, for respondent.
(1) The information in this case properly charges the crime of seduction under promise of marriage. Secs. 3259, 3908, R.S. 1919; State v. Wallace, 289 S.W. 871; State v. Hinds, 14 S.W. (2d) 560. (2) The evidence offered by the State was sufficient to make a case for the jury. State v. Wallace, supra; State v. Hinds, supra; State v. Shiflett, 273 S.W. 727; State v. Stemmons, 275 Mo. 550. The corroborating testimony of promise of marriage offered by the State was sufficient. There was no rebuttal or denial of the evidence that prosecutrix prepared certain household linen and bought dishes in readness for the assumption of her marital status. State v. Sharp, 132 Mo. 165; State v. Thornton, 108 Mo. 640; State v. Bobbitt, 270 S.W. 378. (3) Instruction No. 2 was not erroneous. The proof was not confined to the fifteenth day of August. More than one act of intercourse was shown in the evidence and for that reason the court properly authorized the jury to find the defendant guilty if "at any time within three years before June 27, 1927, defendant did seduce the prosecuting witness under promise of marriage."
By an information filed in the Circuit Court of Schuyler County, the defendant was charged with the seduction, under promise of marriage, of an unmarried female of good repute and under twenty-one years of age. The venue was changed to the Circuit Court of Clark County, where he was convicted and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the penitentiary for two years. Following judgment and sentence in accordance with the verdict, he was allowed an appeal to this court.
According to the testimony of the prosecutrix, Lillie Maud Williams, she was seventeen years of age at the time of the alleged offense. Her name had always been Lillie Maud Williams. Her father was dead. She lived with her mother, Mrs. Mollie Williams, near Queen City, in Schuyler County. She first met the defendant in Memphis, Missouri, in the early part of May, 1926, and from that time, until about the middle of August, 1926, he frequently came to her home, near Queen City, to see her, and they were together frequently on automobile trips in that vicinity. At first, he treated her "as a gentleman should treat a lady," but, after awhile, he asked her to have sexual intercourse with him. At that time, she refused to do so and told him she "wasn't that kind of a girl." Later, she yielded to his solicitation to have sexual intercourse with him, because he told her he loved her and promised to marry her in the following September, and because she loved him and believed he would keep his promise. This happened in the afternoon of July 4, 1926, on a "by-road" between Downing and Lancaster, in Schuyler County. "Along the middle of August, 1926, around the 15th somewhere," she had sexual intercourse with the defendant twice during the same evening, because of his promise and assurance that they "would soon be married." Their first act of sexual intercourse on that occasion occurred along the road between Downing and Lancaster, in Schuyler County, and the second along the road about one mile from her home, in Schuyler County. She was never with the defendant thereafter. On the last Sunday afternoon in August, 1926, he came to her home to see her, but she was not there. During the summer she did "some quilting" and made a dresser scarf, in preparation for her marriage, and asked her mother to buy her wedding dress. About the first of September, 1926, she discovered that she was "in the family way," and immediately wrote and mailed a letter to the defendant, in which she advised him of her condition and asked him to come to her and keep his promise. She received no reply to that letter and the defendant never offered to keep his promise. She and the defendant exchanged letters, both before and after that time. She gave birth to a child on May 19, 1927. The defendant is the father of her child. She never had sexual intercourse with any other man.
The story of the prosecutrix was corroborated, in part, by her mother, who testified that the defendant "kept company" with her daughter "all summer," in 1926, and that, during the defendant's courtship of her daughter, her daughter "made dresser scarfs, stand table cover, quilts, top for one comfort, and she got some dishes as I could give her the money." She further testified that her daughter "wanted money to get a dress," made of blue silk and white lace.
The constable, who arrested the defendant, testified that the defendant "didn't deny doing business with her [the prosecutrix], but said it wasn't his kid."
The State also offered proof of the good reputation of the prosecutrix, for virtue and chastity.
The defendant, testifying in his own behalf, said that he lived in Memphis, Missouri, and was twenty-three years of age in November, 1927; that he met the prosecutrix in Memphis, Missouri, on May 8, 1926, and between that time and July 11, 1926, was with her on various occasions, but never, at any time, promised to marry her;...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Caldwell v. State
...See People v. Smith, 58 Mich.App. 76, 227 N.W.2d 233(12).Missouri: State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S.W. 680, 683(7); State v. Campbell, 324 Mo. 249, 22 S.W.2d 645; State v. Hamlin, 351 Mo. 157, 171 S.W.2d 716; State v. Chittim, 261 S.W.2d 79(1) (Mo.); State v. Bowles, 360 S.W.2d 706(7) (......
-
State v. Roseberry
...746, 749(4). Contrast State v. Chittim, Mo., 261 S.W.2d 79, 80(1); State v. Taylor, 345 Mo. 325, 133 S.W.2d 336, 342(10); State v. Campbell, 324 Mo. 249, 22 S.W.2d 645. And, although the date of the filing of the information was not the subject of any particular proof or testimony, defendan......
-
Commonwealth v. Boyer
... ... the defense of alibi ... As to the ... burglary and larceny alleged to have occurred on December 28, ... 1967, State policeman Robert Haycock testified he arrived at ... the Leola Bowling [216 Pa.Super. 288] Lanes at 9 A.M. on the ... morning of December 28, a ... placed in evidence as well as the other date charged in the ... Indictment ... In State ... v. Campbell, 324 Mo. 249, 22 S.W.2d 645 (1929), the ... Missouri Supreme Court held that where the defense was alibi ... it was prejudicial error for the trial ... ...
-
State v. Palmer
...by defendant tending to show an alibi, as in the cases cited by defendant. See State v. Chittim, Mo.Sup., 261 S.W.2d 79; State v. Campbell, 324 Mo. 249, 22 S.W.2d 645; State v. Socwell, 318 Mo. 742, 300 S.W. 680. But it is true the italicized clause was not necessary or pertinent in this ca......