State v. Cassidy

• Decision Date: 16 May 1892
• Citation: 52 N.W. 1,85 Iowa 145
• Parties: STATE v. CASSIDY.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

85 Iowa 145

52 N.W. 1

STATE

v.CASSIDY.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 16, 1892.

Appeal from district court, Lucas county; E. L. BURTON, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of rape. He was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for five years, and he appeals.M. L. Temple, W. B. Barger, and W. H. Sanders, for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

The case is before us upon a full transcript of the evidence, including all of the rulings of the court bearing upon the evidence. We also have the charge of the court to the jury. The arguments of counsel are quite brief, and that of the counsel for the defendant is confined mainly to a discussion of the evidence, and the claim that there was not sufficient corroboration of the complaining witness to authorize a verdict of guilty. The prosecuting witness testified that she went from her father's house, a distance of about 60 yards, to an air shaft connected with a coal mine, for a bucket of hot water. There was a steam engine and machinery in operation at the air shaft, and the defendant was engaged there as a laborer. She testified that while at the air shaft the defendant took hold of her, and carried her behind the steam boilers, and, by force and against her will, had sexual intercourse with her, and that afterwards she obtained the hot water which she went for, and went to her home. She testified that this occurred in the month of April, 1890. The trial was had in September of the same year, and the prosecuting witness was then about 14 years old. The defendant is of the age of about 35 years. He is married, and has two or three children. It does not appear that the complaining witness told her father and mother that she had been ravished by the defendant until about the 29th day of May, 1890; and she did not then voluntarily communicate the fact to her parents. It appears that the defendant had stated that he had criminal intercourse with her with her consent, and without using force; and that when the parents of the girl heard of it they called her to account for it, and she then made the claim that the defendant had committed a rape upon her. No witness, other than the prosecutrix, testified to any fact which corroborated her, further than that she and the defendant had criminal intercourse with each other. She was corroborated as to the act of sexual intercourse by admissions of the defendant, testified to by other witnesses, and by the defendant himself in his testimony as a witness on the trial. But all of this evidence was to the effect that no force was used, and that the prosecuting witness was willing to engage in the unlawful act, and in fact invited the defendant to engage in its commission. It is evident that the jury did not believe the statements of the defendant further than they involved an admission that the sexual intercourse took place, and this court long ago established the rule that, in a prosecution for a rape, the fact that a rape was committed may be established by the testimony of the injured party alone, and that it is only the connection of the accused with the offense that requires corroboration, under section 4560 of the Code. State v. McLaughlin, 44 Iowa, 82.

But there are other considerations in this case which lead us to hesitate about approving the verdict of the jury. We are not unmindful of the fact that the prosecuting witness, at the time of this alleged...