State v. Huffman

• Decision Date: 17 December 1900
• Citation: 63 P. 1,39 Or. 48
• Parties: STATE v. HUFFMAN.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

63 P. 1

39 Or. 48

STATE v. HUFFMAN.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 17, 1900

Appeal from circuit court, Harney county; M.D. Clifford, Judge.

W.D Huffman was convicted of rape, and appeals. Affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape, upon an indictment returned April 19, 1900. The crime is charged to have been committed July 1, 1899, and, among other things, it is alleged that the defendant was "then and there a male person above the age of sixteen years." He was arraigned on the day in the indictment was found, and on the day following he entered a plea of not guilty, and filed a motion for a postponement of the trial to the next term of the court, supported by his affidavit, wherein he stated, in substance, that he could not safely go to trial without the testimony of Alexander Castro and John E. Lawrence, who would testify, if present, that on or about July 20, 1899, Alfa Farrens, the prosecuting witness, informed them that her mother had theretofore tried to induce her to tell something about the defendant that would get him into, or cause him great trouble, but that she refused to do as her mother desired, for the reason that it was not true; that said testimony was material; and that the motion was not made for the purpose of delay, but that justice might be done. The court refused to grant the continuance, and its action in this regard is assigned as error. The trial of the case was begun on the 26th day of April and concluded on the 27th. The court charged the jury that the averment respecting the age of the defendant at the time of the alleged commission of the crime was material, and that before they could victim him they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that he was then above the age of 16 years, and concluded with the specific instruction "that it is not necessary for the state to produce any evidence of the age of the defendant in this case, as the defendant himself is present, and is evidence of his age, of which you are the judges." An exception was saved to this instruction, and constitutes the second ground of error. Judgment having been rendered on the verdict, the defendant appeals.

L.R Webster, for appellant.

D.R.N. Blackburn, Atty. Gen., for the State.

WOLVERTON, J. (after stating the facts).

We will dispose of the two questions in the order stated.

A motion for a continuance is always addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and the action of the trial court concerning it is not subject to review, except for an abuse of that discretion, or where it has been injudiciously and unwisely exercised, to the prejudice of the moving party. Vanblaricum v. Ward. 1 Blackf. 50; Davis &amp Rankin Bldg. & Mfg. Co. v. Riverside Butter & Cheese Co., 84 Wis. 262, 54 N.W. 506; State v O'Neil, 13 Or. 183, 9 P. 284; State v. Howe, 27 Or. 138, 146, 44 P. 672. The alleged evidence upon which the continuance was sought impresses one as vague and mysterious in character. It is that the prosecuting witness had informed the absent witnesses that her mother tried to induce her to tell something that would get the defendant into great trouble, but that what she wanted her to tell was not true. Whether this evidence was wanted to impeach the prosecuting witness, or to show a conspiracy between the mother and daughter to inculpate the defendant, or in what particular respect it would become material, is not shown. Without some such further showing, its materiality is not clearly apparent. The bill of exceptions shows that the mother and daughter were both called at the trial; that the former testified merely that she was the mother of the prosecutrix, and the latter that she was the person upon whom the crime was charged to have been committed, and that her name was Alfa Farrens. But this did not aid the showing for a continuance in any particular. Furthermore, the affidavit is indefinite as to the time when the mother tried to induce the prosecuting witness to tell "something" about the defendant. For aught that appears, it may have been long before the alleged commission of the crime with which he is charged, and possibly could have no relevancy to his defense in this action. Upon the whole, we cannot say that the court below abused its legal...