State v. Hudson

Citation289 S.W. 920
Decision Date20 December 1926
Docket NumberNo. 27386.,27386.
PartiesSTATE v. HUDSON.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wilson A. Taylor, Judge.

George Hudson was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

S. E. Garner, of St. Louis, for appellant.

North T. Gentry, Atty. Gen., and James A. Potter, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WALKER, P. J.

The defendant was charged by information in the circuit court of the city of St. Louis with the crime of rape. Upon a trial to a jury he was convicted and his punishment assessed at 35 years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From this judgment he appeals.

A white woman, 65 years of age, occupied a room as a tenant in the home of one Alfred Townsend, who resided at 4000 Delmar Avenue in the city of St. Louis. Some time between the hours of 4 and 5:30 o'clock a. m. while the elderly woman was in her bed, the defendant effected an entrance to her room. and when she awoke and discovered his presence he was searching the room for money and told her if she made an outcry he would kill her. After finding the little money she had he cursed and abused her, and, getting into her bed with her, ravished her under a threat to kill her if she resisted. After accomplishing the double purpose of robbery and rape he fled. His victim ran to the room of her landlord and his wife and related what had occurred. Upon the apprehension of the defendant about 10 o'clock a. m. the morning of the crime, he was identified by the woman as the man who had assaulted her. She stated that when she awoke and saw him in her room she recognized him as a negro who made deliveries of prescriptions and articles of merchandise for a nearby drug store; that in that capacity he had, before the commission of the crime, delivered a prescription to her. This portion of her testimony was corroborated by two other witnesses. She was examined by two physicians who were summoned by her landlord an hour or two after the assault. They found scratches and bruises on her arms, cheeks, neck, and legs and lacerations of her genital organs, indicating that she had been assaulted. Proof of an alibi and the previous good character of the defendant were the principal defenses interposed by the accused.

1. The court properly overruled the demurrer to the state's testimony. It was sufficiently substantial to sustain the verdict. The fact that there was evidence pro and con as to the defendant's presence at the time and place of the crime does not lessen the jury's province in believing the state's witnesses and disbelieving those of the defendant. Furthermore, the testimony of the victim of the assault and that of the other witnesses for the state was neither unreasonable, improbable, or contrary to the physical facts. This being true, the jury was fully justified in believing it. Defendant's assignment in this behalf must therefore go for naught.

II. It was sought to introduce in evidence the deposition of a doctor residing elsewhere, who testified to the effect that he had administered to the defendant what he termed a "truth-telling serum," and that while under its influence the defendant had denied his guilt. Testimony of this character — barring the sufficient fact that it cannot be otherwise classified than as a self-serving declaration — is, in the present state of human knowledge, unworthy of serious consideration. We are not told from what well this serum is drawn or in what alembic its alleged truth-compelling powers are distilled. Its...

To continue reading

Request your trial
19 cases
  • State v. Allies, 14305
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • 10 de janeiro de 1980
    ... ... As we will discuss below, this session occurred in direct contravention of defendant's right to counsel and is inadmissible at trial. It is an important factor in the "totality of circumstances" which must be considered. See generally, Townsend v. Sain, supra; State v. Hudson, (Mo.1926), 289 S.W. 920 ...         Two variables weigh heavily in our consideration. The first, lying to defendant about how much is known about his involvement in the crimes, is particularly repulsive to and totally incompatible with the concepts of due process embedded in the ... ...
  • State v. Pyle
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 20 de dezembro de 1938
    ... ...          (1) ... Appellant's assignment of error No. 7, the court did not ... err in failing to instruct the jury as to the requirements of ... or necessity for some corroboration to the story testified to ... by the prosecuting witness, Alta Murdock. State v ... Hudson, 289 S.W. 920; State v. Wilson, 12 ... S.W.2d 445, 321 Mo. 564. (2) The court did not err in keeping ... the jury up until midnight on the fourth and last day of ... trial and until after two o'clock a.m. Friday morning, ... the case having gone to the jury late Thursday night ... State v ... ...
  • State v. King
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 17 de agosto de 1938
    ... ... Cason, 252 S.W. 688; State v ... Sikes, 24 S.W.2d 989. (4) No reversible error was ... committed in refusing to permit appellant to introduce the ... original indictment returned against appellant. State v ... McGuire, 39 S.W.2d 523; Sec. 3563, R. S. 1929; State ... v. Hudson, 285 S.W. 733. (5) The court did not err in ... admitting the statement or confession of appellant. State ... v. Roland, 79 S.W.2d 1050; State v. Menz, 106 ... S.W.2d 440; State v. Miller, 12 S.W.2d 39. (6) No ... error was committed by the court in admitting evidence as to ... ...
  • State v. Sinnott
    • United States
    • New Jersey Supreme Court
    • 3 de junho de 1957
    ... ... Research indicates that offers for this purpose have been uniformly rejected and with good cause. People v. McNichol, 100 Cal.App.2d 554, 224 P.2d 21 (Cal.D.Ct.App.1950); State v. Hudson, 289 S.W. 920 (Mo.Sup.Ct.1926); State v. Lindemuth, 56 N.M. 257, 243 P.2d 325 (N.M.Sup.Ct.1952); Henderson v. State, 94 Okl.Cr. 45, 230 P.2d 495, 23 A.L.R.2d 1292 (Okla.Cr.Ct.1951); Orange v. Commonwealth, 191 Va. 423, 61 S.E.2d 267 (Va.Sup.Ct.App.1950). See People v. Cullen, 37 Cal.2d 614, 234 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT