State v. Hayes

• Decision Date: 07 April 1898
• Citation: 105 Iowa 82,74 N.W. 757
• Parties: STATE v. HAYES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

105 Iowa 82

74 N.W. 757

STATE

v.HAYES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

April 7, 1898.

Appeal from district court, Scott county; P. B. Wolfe, Judge.

Defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of having, on the 28th day of October, 1894, feloniously seduced and debauched one Charlotte Kelly, an unmarried woman, of previously chaste character. Judgment was entered against him that he pay a fine of $1,000, and be imprisoned in the county jail for the term of one day; also for costs. Defendant appeals. Affirmed.Davison & Lane and Emmett M. Sharon, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Ambrose P. McGuirk, for the State.

GIVEN, J.

1. Appellant's first contention is that the evidence does not support the judgment. There is no question but that the prosecutrix was, at the time of the alleged seduction, an unmarried woman, of previously chaste character. The contentions are whether the defendant had sexual intercourse with her with her consent, and whether her consent was procured by artifice, promise, flattery, or deception on the part of the defendant. That some man had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix about the time alleged is placed beyond question by the fact that she was delivered of a child on the 22d day of July, 1895. The evidence is conflicting as to whether the defendant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, she affirming and he denying that he did. We will not discuss the evidence upon this proposition. It is sufficient to say, under it we are not warranted in disturbing the finding of the jury that the defendant did have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix, with her consent, about the time charged in the indictment.

2. Appellant's further contention is that the evidence fails to show that consent was procured by artifice, promise, flattery, or deception on his part. In State v. Fitzgerald, 63 Iowa, 270, 19 N. W. 202, it is said: “There is no legal standard by which to determine what false promises, artifices, and deception are sufficient to constitute the crime of seduction. Of course, mere unlawful commerce for a consideration paid is not seduction.There must be some artifice or false promise by which the virtuous female is induced to surrender her person to the accused. What would be sufficient to overpower the mind of one woman would be insufficient to lead away another of more mature mind and discretion.” In that case the defendant was a married man, aged about 50 years, and the prosecutrix about 12. In this case the defendant was a widower, 38 years of age, and the prosecutrix a girl of 17. The defendant's family consisted of himself, a young lady sister, who kept house for him, and his four children. The prosecutrix resided with her parents near by, attended the high school, and was a frequent visitor at the defendant's home. There is no dispute but that on a Sunday evening, about the latter part of October, 1894, the prosecutrix started from defendant's home to go to the house of a friend, and that the defendant walked with her. She testifies that the defendant had sexual intercourse with her that evening, on the steps of an unlighted church; that, upon reaching the street that led to her friend's house, she was about to turn into that street, when the defendant said, “Come over to Perry street, and I will go with you;” whereupon they passed onto Perry street, and to the steps of the church. She further testifies as follows: “He said, ‘Let's go up and sit down on the steps.’ So we went up there. While up there, at first he put his arm around me, and then began to coax and flatter and say things. Then he asked me if I had ever had intercourse with anybody. I told him, ‘No,’ and he said, ‘Well, it won't hurt you.’ He began to ask me, and I said ‘No’ at first. And he said: ‘No; it won't hurt you. This has been done before.’ Then he talked awhile, and he says, ‘Come up back here on the steps, and lie down;’ and I did it. And then I didn't remember anything until then it just come to me that I had been to holy communion, and I said, ‘Oh! I have been to communion this morning;’ and then he got up, after he had succeeded in having intercourse.” The court instructed to the effect that if the prosecutrix voluntarily, and in response to mere solicitations or persuasions, and without flattery or artifice on his part, submitted to intercourse with the defendant, it would not be seduction, under the law. “In order...