State v. Jameson
| Decision Date | 19 December 1887 |
| Citation | 35 N.W. 712,38 Minn. 21 |
| Parties | STATE v JAMESON. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
(Syllabus by the Court.)
In an indictment for abduction, under the first clause of subdivision 1, § 240, Pen. Code, it is not necessary to allege that the taking was without the consent of the parent or guardian, but it is proper to state from whose custody the female was taken.
In order to constitute a “taking,” within the meaning of this section, it is not necessary that it should appear that force or violence was used. It may be accomplished by persuasion, enticement, or device. But it must not only appear that the female was taken away or induced to leave through the active influence or persuasion of the accused, but it must also appear that it was done for the illicit purpose forbidden by the statute.
Evidence in this case considered, and held insufficient to show a “taking” for the unlawful purpose alleged.
Appeal from district court, McLeod county; EDSON, Judge.
Moses E. Clapp, Atty. Gen., P.M. Nelson, and R. H. McClelland, for the State, respondent.
A. P. Fitch and H. J. Peck, for Jameson, appellant.
The indictment in this case is for abduction, under subd. 1, § 240, Pen. Code. It charges that “the defendant, at the village of Glencoe, in the county of McLeod, did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously take a certain unmarried female, named Emma Urbach, out of the possession of Henrietta Urbach, her mother and guardian, for the purposes of sexual intercourse, she, the said Emma Urbach, being then and there an unmarried girl under the age of sixteen years, to-wit, of the age of fifteen years; contrary,” etc. The statute provides as follows, (subdivision 1:) “A person who takes a female, under the age of sixteen years, for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, or without the consent of her father, mother, guardian, or other person having legal charge of her person, for the purpose of marriage, *** or, (4) being parent, guardian, or other person having legal charge of the person of a female under the age of sixteen years, consents to her taking or detaining by any person for the purpose of prostitution or sexual intercourse, is guilty of abduction.” It will be observed that these provisions are materially different from the New York statute on the same subject.
1. To constitute this crime under subdivision 1, the section referred to, it is not necessary to allege or prove that the “taking” was without the consent of the parent or guardian, though evidence on this question may be material in ascertaining the circumstances of an alleged abduction. A distinct and essential element of the offense under this statute is the unlawful purpose for which the taking is had. In this case it is alleged, in respect to the taking, simply that the female in question was taken from the possession of her mother. This refers to the custody of the person having charge of her or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Duffy
...defendant, but was insufficient, as we think, to establish the particular offense charged, and there must be a new trial.” State v. Jamison, 38 Minn. 21, 35 N.W. 712. The foregoing citations parallel the situation in the present case. On the point of intent we think, in the words of the Tex......
- State v. Sager
-
State v. Sager
...persons lawfully entitled to the custody of the child. The gravamen of the offense is the taking, not the marrying. See State v. Jamison, 38 Minn. 21, 35 N. W. 712. The consent of the child is immaterial and irrelevant. She was capable, when of the age of 15 years, or more, of consenting to......
-
McCarthy's St. Louis Park Cafe, Inc. v. Minneapolis Baseball and Athletic Ass'n
... ... '5. During the course of the negotiations referred to in Paragraph 4 hereinabove, ... 'a. Defendant represented to plaintiff that defendant's state of mind was that defendant intended to use said land for the construction and operation of an athletic stadium. There was no representation by ... ...