State v. Hayes

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

74 N.W. 757

105 Iowa 82

STATE OF IOWA v. JAMES T. HAYES, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 7, 1898

Appeal from Scott District Court.--HON. P. B. WOLFE, Judge.

DEFENDANT was indicted, tried, and convicted of having, on the twenty-eighth 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 one thousand dollars, and be imprisoned in the county jail for a term of one day; also for costs. Defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

Davison & Lane and Emmett M. Sharon for appellant.

Milton Remley, attorney general, and Ambrose P. McGuirk for the state.

GIVEN J. WATRRMAN, J., takes no part.

OPINION

GIVEN, J.

I.

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 twenty-second 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.

II. 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 268, 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 fifty years, and the prosecutrix about twelve. In this case the defendant was a widower, thirty-eight years of age, and the prosecutrix a girl of seventeen. 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 wont hurt you. This has been done before,' Then he talked a while, 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 to make out the crime charged in the indictment, it must be shown that the consent of said Charlotte Kelly to the sexual act was...