State v. O'Hare

• Decision Date: 31 December 1904
• Citation: 36 Wash. 516,79 P. 39
• Court: Washington Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. O'HARE.

79 P. 39

36 Wash. 516

STATE v. O'HARE.

Supreme Court of Washington

December 31, 1904

Appeal from Superior Court, Adams County; C. H. Neal, Judge.

Thomas O'Hare was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Zent Lovell & Linn, for appellant.

C. L Holcomb and O. R. Holcomb, for the State.

MOUNT J.

Appellant was convicted of the crime of seduction. A number of errors are assigned which are without merit, and which do not require discussion. The principal point relied upon is that the evidence was not sufficient to go to the jury. The prosecuting witness testified, in substance, that she first met the appellant in July, 1901; that she was then 20 years of age; that she and appellant began keeping company with each other at that time, and continued to do so until the fall of 1902; that the appellant came to her father's house to see her about twice a week, usually on Wednesday and Saturday evenings; that about the 1st of March, 1902 appellant proposed marriage to the witness, and she accepted the proposal; that the time for the marriage was set for the spring of 1904; that soon after the engagement appellant began making proposals for sexual intercourse; that she refused for a week or two, but finally on March 18, 1902, after appellant had taken her on his lap and fondled her, and assured her that no harm could come of it, and that if he got her into trouble he would marry her right away, she yielded to his solicitations; that after this time she submitted to his desires quite often, until she discovered that she was in a family way, when, on the 18th day of July, 1902, she told appellant of her condition, and requested him to marry her, which he refused to do. On the 15th day of January, 1903, a child was born to the witness. She also testified that she never had sexual intercourse with any one else. On cross-examination she testified in part as follows: 'Q. And you never did give up, did you? A. Yes, sir; I did. Q. So you consented, did you? A. Under promise of marriage, I did; yes, sir. Q. You consented conditionally, then--that he would marry you if he got you into trouble? A. Only so. Q. If he had not promised to marry you right away if he got you into trouble, you would not have consented at the time you did? A. No, sir. Q. If he had not promised to marry you right away if he got you into trouble, you would not have submitted--you relied on this conditional promise? A. If he had not promised to marry me, I would not have submitted. Q. Answer the question. A. Of course, if he had not promised to marry me right away if he got me into trouble, I would not have submitted to him.'

Appellant's contention is that, because the prosecutrix said she submitted to the appellant only upon the promise that he would marry her right away if he got her into trouble, and that she would not have submitted but for that promise, there was no seduction. Several cases are cited sustaining this position--among them, People v Ryan, 63 A.D. 429, 71 N.Y.S. 527; State v. Adams, 25 Or. 172, 35 P. 36, 22 L. R. A. 840, 42 Am. St. Rep. 790; 25 Am. & Eng. Enc. of Law (2d Ed.) p. 231. But in the states so holding, especially the ones cited, there can be no criminal seduction under the statutes except under promise of marriage. Our statute contains no such provision. It is as follows: 'If any person seduce and debauch any unmarried woman of previously chaste character, he shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not more than five years, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars and imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year. If before judgment upon an indictment the defendant marry the woman thus seduced, it is a bar to any further prosecution for the offense.' Section 7066, 2 Ballinger's Ann. Codes & St. This statute does not limit the seduction to those cases only where there is a promise of marriage, as in the cases...