State v. Dalrymple

• Decision Date: 19 March 1925
• Docket Number: 26012
• Citation: 270 S.W. 675
• Parties: STATE v. DALRYMPLE
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

270 S.W. 675

STATE v. DALRYMPLE

No. 26012

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

March 19, 1925

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty Gen., and Geo. W. Crowder, Asst. Atty. Gen for the State.

OPINION

DAVID E. BLAIR, J.

With as little offense to decency as could possibly be given, the learned Attorney General has stated the facts appearing in a record replete with revolting and disgusting details of sexual depravity. Without the confusion attendant upon employment of quotation marks by us, we adopt his statement of facts in its entirety:

Appellant was tried by jury in the circuit court of St. Louis county on the 4th day of January, 1924, upon an indictment charging him with the crime of forcible rape upon one Esther Pettibone, a female person of the age of 19 years. The information alleges that the crime was committed on the 6th day of October, 1923. At the close of the trial the jury returned a verdict of guilty as charged, and assessed appellant's punishment at 25 years in the penitentiary. After unsuccessful motions for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, appellant brings his case to this court by appeal.

The evidence on the part of the state shows that Esther Pettibone, the complaining witness, lived with her parents at No. 6308 Wellsmar avenue at the time of the alleged crime. She testified that she had been working at a factory in the city of St. Louis; that a girl named Sadie Dougherty worked at the same factory, and at the same machine at which Esther Pettibone worked, and the two girls were friends. The home of the Dougherty girl was in the city of St. Louis, but not far from the line separating the city from St. Louis county, and was several blocks distant from the home of Esther Pettibone.

The testimony shows that Esther Pettibone was a frail girl weighing but little more than 100 pounds and was 19 years old; that Sadie Dougherty had mentioned at different times the names of one Louis Worthem and appellant, as her friends and had asked the complaining witness if she would like to go out with them some time. The complaining witness testified that she told her girl companion that she did not know whether she would like to go out or not, and that she asked Sadie what sort of fellows the men were. She testified that she was assured by Sadie that they were nice boys. The matter was dismissed between the girls by Sadie saying that she would call up the Pettibone girl some time.

On Saturday, the 6th day of October, 1923, the factory workers quit for the day, and the complaining witness went to her home where she remained during the entire afternoon. About 6:40 o'clock that evening Esther Pettibone received a telephone call from Sadie Dougherty asking her if she would like to go out that evening with the two young men whose names had been formerly mentioned. The complaining witness was undecided for a time, and within a half hour or so Sadie called again, and at her second invitation Esther promised to go, but did not mention this fact, or the fact of any call coming to her, to any member of her family. It was arranged that Esther should meet Sadie and the two young men at what was called the Wellston Loop, the arrangement and agreement being, in the words of the complaining witness, as follows:

'Q. At whose suggestion was the meeting place made at the loop? A. Well, she called up and said she had to get her mother some butter and everything, and I said, 'Well I would just meet you then,' and she said, 'That is all right.' ''

After these people met, Esther got into the automobile, which was a single-seated coupe, and the four drove into St. Louis county. Appellant was at the wheel, and the other members of the party were sitting in the same seat with him. The evidence shows that appellant drove by his place of employment, where he was due to go to work at 11 o'clock that night. He asked and obtained a leave of absence for two hours. After driving some 4 or 5 miles into St. Louis county appellant turned off of the main highway and drove down a side road, which was less frequently traveled, where he parked his car. At this time the complaining witness testified that she grew nervous and suspicious that all was not well; that she declared her intention to go home, but was told by appellant that she was not going home. After the car had been parked Sadie Dougherty and Louis Worthem got out, took from the car a laprobe, and went out to the side of the road, leaving appellant and the complaining witness seated in the car. Complainant testified that appellant then began his importunities for sexual intercourse with her but was repulsed, her testimony on this point being as follows:

'A. I told him that I would not, and he said, 'God damn you; you will' I said, 'I will not,' and he said, 'You have to; there is no way out of it' I said, 'I will walk first,' and he said 'God damn you; you won't walk; I am going to get out of you what I want to-night, or I will -- ' He said, 'I will never leave this place' And I started crying, and started to get out of the car, and he pulled me back; he said, 'No; you won't get out;' and all at once Sadie Dougherty started laughing, and he said, 'He is jazzing her up now;' and I said, 'I don't care,' and he looked out of the car, and he said, 'Can you see?' and I said, 'No; I can't see' I could not see them; and he said; 'Well; that is what I am going to do to you;' and he held me there all the time; he would not let me go out, and pretty soon he said, 'Are you going to do it in the car or out?' And I said, 'I am not going to do it in the car; if I get out, I will walk;' and he said, 'You will not walk;' and he started cursing again, and he said, 'I will show you what I am going to do to you;' and he got out of the car, and he said, 'Come on;' and I said, 'No;' and just then Sadie Dougherty and Mr. Worthem stepped up to the car, and he said, 'Come on;' and I said, 'No;' and then I told Sadie Dougherty, 'Now you brought me out here, and now you ought to be a friend of mine and stick with me;' and she said, 'I will;' and just then Mr. Dalrymple said, 'Go on away for a while, will you, Louis?' '

After Worthem was asked to go away, complainant testified that he (Worthem) picked Sadie up and carried her away with him. Then appellant roughly pulled the complaining witness out of the car, twisting her arms in the effort and pulled or dragged her to where the laprobe lay on the ground, and there threw her down upon the laprobe. She testified that a scuffle ensued, that she fought appellant, bit him, kicked him, and put forth every effort to protect herself against his lecherous assault until she was practically exhausted; that she called to what she supposed was her friend, Saiie, for help but received no assistance; that during the scuffle a car was seen turning into the side road, whereupon the following took place:

'A. I saw this car, but I did not see it until Mr. Dalrymple had pulled me by the arm. He said, 'Here comes a car;' and he picked up the rug, and he ran over to the car, and I was a few feet away from him when he was picking up the rug, and he ran after me and pulled me by the arm. He said, 'No; God damn you; you are not going to get away from me.' ''

It was soon seen that the car was not approaching near enough to be a disturbing element, and then appellant bodily carried the complaining witness over to the side of the road, taking with him the laprobe which he had carried back to his car when they saw the other car approaching. He spread the laprobe upon the ground, threw appellant (complainant) upon it after another scuffle, and there forcibly accomplished the act of sexual intercourse while Sadie and her companion sat in the car only a few paces away. After the act had been performed appellant said to the complaining witness: 'We are going now'; and pulled her up from the ground.

The evidence shows that immediately after this occurrence that complainant's dress was found to have been torn; that her drawers had been ripped up the side and torn across the front so as to make access to her private organs easy; that her hair was dishevelled; that the works of her wrist watch, which she was wearing at the time, had been knocked out; that finger prints were upon her arms, and bruises at different places upon her body, these bruises and finger prints being still visible on Monday following when she was examined by a physician. The testimony of the physician shows that on a physical examination of the complaining witness he found her sexual organs to be inflamed; that the hymenal membrane had been recently broken; and further found bruises upon her body and arms.

The complaining witness further testified that after appellant had accomplished the act all the members of the party, including appellant, got into the car and drove home; that when they approached within half a block or so of complainant's home, the car was stopped, and she walked down to the house, appellant accompanying her as far as the gate. This was about the hour of midnight, and when appellant (complainant) went into the house she testified that she called her mother downstairs immediately and told her what appellant had done to her.

Appellant testifying for himself, said that he met Esther Pettibone for the first time at the Wellston Loop on the evening of October 6, 1923; that he was introduced to her by Sadie Dougherty; that he, Sadie Dougherty, and Louis Worthem (a married man) were in the automobile at the time; that after the introduction Esther Pettibone got into the car with them and they drove to a place or two in the city, then out into St. Louis county, and down upon the side road described by the complaining witness. He testified that while driving about the city and along the county highway Esther...