State v. Chapman

• Decision Date: 18 May 1893
• Citation: 55 N.W. 489,88 Iowa 254
• Parties: STATE v. CHAPMAN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

88 Iowa 254

55 N.W. 489

STATE

v.CHAPMAN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 18, 1893.

Appeal from district court, Black Hawk county; John J. Ney, Judge.

Indictment for rape. Verdict for an assault with intent to commit a rape. The defendant appealed.Hemenway & Grundy, for appellant.

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

GRANGER, J.

The prosecuting witness is one Bina Mork, who was at the time of the alleged offense about 19 years of age. The following statement of facts, as disclosed by her testimony, we take from the argument of appellee: “It appears therefrom that Bina Mork, a girl nineteen years old, who had known the defendant about three years, was going with him on foot from Cedar Falls to her home, about six miles distant. That the two walked on the Illinois Central Railway track a portion of the way home. About three miles from Cedar Falls, at the solicitation of the defendant, they ‘cut across the fields,’ that they might reach home by a shorter and quicker route. She consented to go by the nearer route without much dissent, and after they had started across the fields, and on coming to low ground covered with short grass, the defendant made improper proposals to her. The testimony shows that she first walked away, and that he asked her to come back, and to stop,--that he wanted to speak to her. She at first refused, saying that she wanted to go home. He called her again, and, after some parleying, she came back to where he was standing. He then renewed his proposals, which she rejected, and finally, in a bantering way, gave him to understand that he was not strong enough. The testimony shows that he seized her, there was a struggle, and he threw her down, and against her wishes and desires had improper relations with her; she at the time endeavoring to free herself from his grasp and make her escape.” The only corroboration relied upon, as stated by the district court in its instructions, is that of two witnesses who testified that they saw defendant and the prosecuting witness together on the track of the Illinois Central Railway at the time of which she testified. They saw nothing more. They did not see them leave the track, nor give a word of testimony corroborating the complainant, except that defendant was with her on the track. There is nothing in such testimony tending to connect him with the offense. Nothing in their testimony shows the parties out of the sight of others, so that there was really...