State v. Hatcher
| Decision Date | 06 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | No. 36850.,36850. |
| Parties | STATE v. HATCHER ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Harrison County; Earl Peters, Judge.
A joint indictment for statutory rape. The defendants entered a plea of not guilty, and were tried jointly. The jury found each of the defendants guilty of assault with intent to commit rape, and they appeal. Reversed and remanded.R. J. Organ, of Missouri Valley, and William P. Welch, of Logan, for appellants.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., and Neill Garrett, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
The prosecuting witness, at the time of the transaction involved, was about 13 years and 9 months of age. She weighed 106 pounds, and was well developed, and appeared to be about 16 years of age. Appellant Riley was 20 years of age and appellant Hatcher 21 years of age.
[1] The 14th day of September, 1924, was a Sunday. The prosecutrix lived on a farm with her foster mother, who was also her grandmother, a short distance southwest of the town of Mondamin. On the afternoon of the day in question, the prosecuting witness and her cousin, one Ledith Hirst, and her foster mother, attended a moving picture show at the town of Missouri Valley. Ledith Hirst is a woman about 24 years of age and married, but was not living with her husband. She is the mother of three children. As the parties left the moving picture show about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, they met appellant Hatcher. It was arranged that Hatcher and Ledith Hirst should take the prosecutrix home. The foster mother, Mrs. Smith, testified that the plan was that they were to follow immediately behind the car in which Mrs. Smith was riding. Hatcher and Ledith Hirst and the prosecutrix started, in Hatcher's car, and, before leaving Missouri Valley, picked up Riley. Thereafter Hatcher and Ledith Hirst rode in the front seat and Riley and the prosecutrix in the back seat. They stopped at a byroad in the country.
The evidence of the prosecutrix is to the effect that Hatcher and Ledith left the car and went into the woods nearby and were gone 15 or 20 minutes, and that, while said parties were so gone, appellant Riley got out of the automobile and took the prosecutrix by the hand and pulled her from the car and committed the act complained of by the side of the car. When Hatcher and Ledith returned, all of the parties got into the car and resumed their trip. Later on, it is the contention of the prosecutrix, that Hatcher again drove the car off the main road and stopped, and Hatcher, who was driving, got out of the car, and Riley got into the front seat where Ledith Hirst was sitting, and that then Hatcher took the prosecutrix from the car and ran with her a half block in front of the car and threw her down in the road and there committed the act complained of. The parties drove on toward the home of the prosecutrix, and shortly before reaching the home met the foster mother of the prosecutrix, on the highway. It is her contention that she signaled to the occupants of the car to stop the car, but they did not do so, and drove on to the home and left the prosecutrix there. The foster mother did not return home immediately, but went for a short visit at the home of her mother, and, returning, met the car on the road again, and again signaled the occupants to stop, but they did not do so. There is no evidence that the occupants of the car recognized her upon either occasion. About 10 o'clock of the morning following, the foster mother of the prosecutrix discovered stains upon a garment which the prosecutrix had worn the night before, and interrogated her about it, and, in answer to questions, the prosecutrix told of the transactions substantially as testified to by her on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial