State v. Clemons

• Decision Date: 05 June 1889
• Citation: 78 Iowa 123,42 N.W. 562
• Parties: STATE v. CLEMONS.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

78 Iowa 123

42 N.W. 562

STATE

v.CLEMONS.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

June 5, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Marion county; A. W. WILKINSON, Judge.

Defendant was indicted and convicted of seduction. He now appeals to this court.Hays Bros., for appellant.

John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and G. W. Crozier, Co. Atty., for the State.

BECK, J.

1. The prosecuting witness was permitted to testify, against defendant's objection, that after the alleged seduction she gave birth to a child, and to state the date of such birth. She also testified that the child she had with her was the child. The facts of the birth of a child, and the date of such birth, were matters connected with the alleged seduction proper to be shown in support of prosecutrix' testimony that she had sexual intercourse, and the time thereof. This evidence does not connect defendant with the crime, and does not, therefore, corroborate the prosecutrix in that way and to that extent. It was not introduced and admitted for that purpose. The reference to the child was not erroneously permitted. We know of no rule which would require the separation of the mother and child while she testified or was present at the trial. It was not improper for her to state that the child was the one she alleged was begotten by defendant. The child was not produced to exhibit an alleged resemblance to the defendant. The record shows no claim of that kind.

2. A witness with whom the prosecutrix lived was not permitted to testify that she was out often late at night before the alleged seduction. The evidence was competent upon the question of the chaste character of the prosecutrix, and ought to have been admitted. It has always been well understood that roaming at night is an evidence of want of virtue in a woman. A “nightwalker” is a name applied to one who roams at night for evil purpose. No good purpose can ordinarily take a young girl with frequency, late at night, away from her home.

3. The court instructed the jury that plaintiff is presumed by the law to have been of chaste character prior to the alleged seduction, and the defendant must overcome this presumption by proof of previous unchastity, but that “no acts, conduct, or words [of the prosecutrix] after the alleged seduction, if any have been proven, can be by you considered in determining whether the previous character was chaste or unchaste.” This instruction declares that nothing said or spoken by the prosecutrix after the seduction can be...