State v. Fountain

• Decision Date: 15 December 1899
• Citation: 81 N.W. 162,110 Iowa 15
• Parties: STATE v. FOUNTAIN.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

110 Iowa 15

81 N.W. 162

STATE

v.FOUNTAIN.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Dec. 15, 1899.

Appeal from district court, Johnson county; M. J. Wade, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, and from the judgment, which required that he be imprisoned in the state penitentiary at Anamosa at hard labor for the term of two years, he appeals. Reversed.Jas. Hart and Ranck & Bradley, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROBINSON, C. J.

The indictment charged that on the 30th day of December, 1897, the defendant did carnally know and abuse one Hattie Carnott, a female child under the age of 15 years.

1. The district court charged the jury that there were but two questions in the case: (1) As to the age of Hattie Carnott; (2) as to whether the defendant had intercourse with the said Hattie Carnott. It is objected that other questions than the two stated were made on the trial, and that the jury should have been instructed more definitely. Thus it is not disputed that Hattie Carnott was 15 years of age on the 5th day of May, 1898, and there was evidence on the part of the defendant to show that she was of that age at an earlier date. It is said the court did not limit the inquiry of the jury to the time before she had attained that age; also that it is not certain that the act in question was committed in Johnson county. The part of the charge referred to was not strictly accurate in respect to the matters pointed out, but prejudice to the defendant could not have resulted from the inaccuracies, for the reason that by another portion of the charge the jury was directed to return a verdict of not guilty unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had sexual intercourse with Hattie Carnott, in Johnson county, within 18 months prior to the date on which the indictment was returned, and that at the time of the intercourse she was under the age of 15 years.

2. The court charged the jury as follows: “It is the law that in cases of rape the defendant cannot be convicted upon the testimony of the prosecuting witness alone; there must be other evidence to corroborate the claims of the prosecuting witness. So that in this case you would not be justified in convicting upon the testimony of Hattie Carnott alone. There must be other corroborating evidence, tending to establish the truth of her testimony; and it is for you to say whether there is sufficient evidence in this case, aside from the evidence of Hattie Carnott, to corroborate and tend to establish the truth of her evidence. If not, there can be no conviction.” Section 5488 of the Code contains the following: “The defendant in a prosecution for rape * * * cannot be convicted upon the testimony of the person injured, unless she be corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant...