State v. Fisher

• Decision Date: 23 April 1901
• Citation: 62 S.W. 690,162 Mo. 169
• Parties: STATE v. FISHER.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

62 S.W. 690

162 Mo. 169

STATE v. FISHER.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

April 23, 1901.

CRIMINAL LAW — SEDUCTION — EVIDENCE — INSTRUCTIONS — REASONABLE DOUBT — NECESSITY OF REQUESTS — WITNESSES — CREDIBILITY — CHARACTER — CROSS-EXAMINATION.

1. Evidence that prosecutrix was a young woman of chaste character prior to her seduction; that defendant often visited her, and made extravagant professions of affection, by which he finally gained her consent to marry him, and that he admitted that he wrote her letters introduced in evidence, containing amorous passages, and that after she promised to marry him he began to ply his arts to seduce the prosecutrix; and that she gave birth to twins born out of wedlock, — was sufficient to sustain a conviction for seduction.

2. An instruction on reasonable doubt that the law presumes defendant innocent of the offense charged, and that it devolves on the state to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and, if the jury have a reasonable doubt of his guilt, they should acquit him, but that a doubt, to authorize an acquittal on that ground, should be a substantial doubt, founded on the evidence, and not a mere possibility of innocence, was correct.

3. Where, in a criminal case, no instruction as to defendant's good character was asked, and no request made for the court to instruct on all questions of law in the case, the court's failure to instruct on his character was not error.

4. In the absence of an exception to the court's failure to instruct on a particular issue in a criminal case, such failure will not be reviewed.

5. That the court charged that the jury should take certain facts of relationship into consideration, when determining the credibility of witnesses, instead of that the jury might take such facts into consideration, was not reversible error.

6. In the absence of an exception to the admission of evidence over defendant's objection, the ruling cannot be reviewed on appeal.

7. Where, in a prosecution for seduction, defendant's witness testified that defendant bore a good reputation for morality in the neighborhood in which he resided, the fact that witness was erroneously asked on cross-examination if he had not heard of an attempt by defendant to seduce another girl was not reversible error, where the witness promptly answered that he had not heard such a rumor.

8. Where, in a prosecution for seduction, defendant denied that he had ever had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, and denied that he had promised to marry her as alleged, it was proper to allow him to be cross-examined for the purpose of explaining amorous passages in his letters to prosecutrix, which the state offered and read in evidence; there appearing to be a glaring discrepancy between his letters and his testimony.

Appeal from circuit court, Moniteau county; H. C. Timmonds, Special Judge.

William Fisher was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

John Cosgrove and C. D. Corum, for appellant. The Attorney General and Sam B. Jeffries, for the State.

GANTT, J.

The defendant was indicted in the circuit court of Moniteau county for the seduction of the prosecutrix, an unmarried female of previous chaste character, under the age of 18 years. He was duly arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. He was put on his trial and convicted on the 19th day of June, 1899, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years. From that sentence, this appeal is prosecuted. The evidence tended to establish that the prosecutrix was a young woman of chaste reputation and character prior to her seduction by defendant; that defendant often visited her, made many extravagant professions of affection for her, and...