State v. Hill
| Decision Date | 16 June 1896 |
| Citation | 134 Mo. 663,36 S.W. 223 |
| Parties | STATE v. HILL. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
2. An orphan girl under 18 years of age, who, by arrangement between herself and defendant's wife, in which he concurred, became a member of his family, working for her support, was "confided" to his "care and protection," within the meaning of Rev. St. 1889, § 3487, and he is subject to prosecution thereunder for her defilement. Sherwood, J., dissenting.
Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; Dorsey W. Shackleford, Judge.
Robert J. Hill was convicted of a crime, and appeals. Affirmed.
The defendant appeals to this court because of his conviction and sentence under provisions of section 3487, Rev. St. 1889: "If any guardian of any female under the age of eighteen years, or any other person to whose care or protection any such female shall have been confided, shall defile her, by carnally knowing her, while she remains in his care, custody or employment, he shall, in cases not otherwise provided for, be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years, or by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year and a fine not less than one hundred dollars." The evidence tends to show that Emma Pierce, who was the sister of the brother-in-law of defendant's wife, went to defendant's house on a visit, and after remaining there for a week she had a conversation with Mrs. Hill, the wife of defendant, when the latter told her that she liked her better than the girl that she had that is, a girl Mrs. Hill kept to work for her, for her board and clothes. Emma Pierce, the prosecutrix, did not speak to defendant about remaining at defendant's house, but only to his wife, and his wife said, "If it was all right with him [her husband], it was all right with her." So it seems that defendant, though not spoken to by prosecutrix, was in some way apprised of this arrangement, though there is no direct testimony on the subject. At any rate, prosecutrix's little brother, Bluford Pierce, was sent for, and also prosecutrix's organ, and they were then domiciled at defendant's house; and he told a party that they were members of his family, and had a right to attend school in the district. He also attempted to buy a carriage, and told another party that his purpose in doing so was that his family, including these children, could attend church together. In various ways, defendant exercised control over the girl and her brother, and they obeyed him. He chose her associates, and proscribed those of them whom he did not like. Within a few weeks after her arrival at her new home, prosecutrix testified, defendant had sexual intercourse with her out at his barn, and frequently thereafter at his house, in the same room where his wife was sleeping in another bed, some six feet distant, the result of which was her pregnancy, and the birth of an infant of which defendant seemed quite fond and proud (carrying it in his arms and exhibiting it to visitors within an hour or two after its birth), and assisted very assiduously in taking care of it and its mother, and seemed to feel, and so expressed himself, as quite gratified at the thought that in consequence of the child's birth all ground for the belief that he "wouldn't breed" had been entirely removed. Before the birth of the child, — about a month, — defendant (so prosecutrix testified) bought material for the child's clothing, and concealed it down at the barn, and prosecutrix made it up. Defendant denied that he had any intercourse with prosecutrix, or knew of her pregnancy, but does not deny that he bought materials for its clothing, nor that he concealed it at the barn. Nor does he deny that he went with prosecutrix to Kansas City, paid her way there, and while there bought clothes for herself and child, and gave her some money. Nor does he deny that they (prosecutrix, child, and defendant) stopped at his brother's at that place. He does deny, however, what prosecutrix testifies to, that while in Kansas City he proposed to her that, if she would swear the child was not his, he would leave his wife and go off and marry her. Defendant made statements to parties who were witnesses for the state which seem strongly to imply his paternity of the child. To one witness he said, speaking on this point: "There isn't any one knows anything about it but her [referring to prosecutrix] and me." Of another witness for the state (Lee Pierce) he asked the question (as that witness testified) whether he had ever seen the child, and whether it looked like him; and, this witness replying that "it favored him," thereupon defendant asked witness who he thought the father of the child was, and witness told him, "I think it is yours." To this response defendant made no reply, but "kinder laughed." These statements just referred to were not denied by defendant when on the witness stand. It also appears in evidence that defendant dictated two statements for prosecutrix to sign, and she wrote them, in which she stated that defendant was not the father of her child; and she acknowledged to several witnesses that it was her own (the statement), and that she was not influenced by any one in making it. The above is the substance of the evidence.
The court, of its own motion, gave the following instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hester
...to be brought before the jury as inculpatory circumstances, of whose probative force the triers of the fact must judge." State v. Hill, 134 Mo. 663, 36 S.W. 223. In one of the South Carolina Cases, since the case of State v. Edwards was decided, has it been declared that the defendant, unde......
-
State v. Poynter
... ... it was not a prior conviction, and would not authorize the ... conviction of this defendant, as a persistent violator, of a ... No one ... can plead guilty for a defendant in a criminal case. (C. S., ... sec. 8881.) ... Roy L ... Black, Attorney General, Clarence S. Hill and Jas. L. Boone, ... Assistants, for Respondent ... Where ... one is charged with a misdemeanor, he may appear and plead on ... arraignment by counsel. (C. S., secs. 8848, 8860.) ... Where ... the statute requires the court to impose a sentence upon ... conviction of ... ...
-
The State v. Butler
... ... answer made by him, other than a denial of the charge or ... accusation, were properly [258 Mo. 437] admissible as ... evidence, the probative weight and effect of the same to be ... determined by the jury. [State v. Swisher, 186 Mo ... 1, 84 S.W. 911; State v. Hill, 134 Mo. 663, 36 S.W ... 223; State v. Lovell, 235 Mo. 343, 138 S.W. 523.] ... It is ... further claimed by appellant, however, that the statement ... made by witness Mosby was not such a statement as called for ... any reply upon the part of defendant. We are unable to ... ...
-
State v. Nibarger
...St. Rep. 792; State v. Hesterly, 182 Mo. 16, 81 S. W. 624, 103 Am. St. Rep. 634; State v. Summar, 143 Mo. 226, 45 S. W. 254; State v. Hill, 134 Mo. 663, 36 S. W. 223; State v. Sibley, 131 Mo. 519, 33 S. W. 167. Of course, we do not desire to be understood by the use of the words "confidenti......