State v. Jeanoes

• Decision Date: 30 March 1923
• Parties: STATE, Respondent, v. JOHN JEANOES, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

213 P. 1017

36 Idaho 810

STATE, Respondent, v. JOHN JEANOES, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

March 30, 1923

RAPE-PROOF OF MARITAL RELATION-CONFESSION-ADMISSION OF.

1. The absence of the marital relation is a necessary ingredient in the crime of rape, and must be alleged and proved. This may be done, however, by facts and circumstances from which the conclusion may be drawn, and direct and positive evidence is not necessary.

2. The confession of the accused of the commission of the crime charged, being freely and voluntarily made, and neither induced by the expectation of any promised benefit or advantage nor by the fear of any threatened injury, was properly admitted in evidence.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, for Bannock County. Hon. O. R. Baum, Judge.

Defendant was convicted of the crime of rape. Judgment affirmed.

Affirmed.

W. H Witty, for Appellant.

The circumstances and surroundings under which the written statement purporting to be a confession was caused to be signed by defendant were such as should cause the court to look with grave suspicion on this exhibit. (State v Crump, 5 Idaho 166, 47 P. 814.)

A. H Conner, Attorney General, and James L. Boone, Assistant, for Respondent.

"The act of sexual intercourse may be proved by circumstantial evidence." (People v. Preston, 19 Cal.App. 675, 127 P. 660; 33 Cyc. 1487, note 18, 1421, note 37.)

"That the prosecutrix was not the wife of the accused at the date of the alleged offense may be proved by circumstantial evidence." (State v. Cutler, 15 Ariz. 343, 138 P. 1048; People v. Bonzani, 24 Cal.App. 549, 141 P. 1062; State v. Powell, 11 Okla. Cr. 615, 150 P. 92; People v. Allison, 44 Cal.App. 118, 185 P. 992; State v. Lenord, 15 Ariz. 137, 137 P. 412.)

WM. E. LEE, J. Budge, C. J., and McCarthy, J., concur.

OPINION

WM. E. LEE, J.

--Appellant was convicted of the crime of statutory rape, alleged to have been committed on or about March 28, 1920, upon the person of a girl sixteen years of age. This appeal is from the judgment.

Appellant assigns as error the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment, first, in that there is no evidence in the record to prove that appellant and the girl were not husband and wife on the date of the alleged offense, and second, that it is not shown that actual sexual intercourse was indulged in.

With reference to the first contention: We have made a very careful examination of the record in this case to determine whether or not there is sufficient evidence to establish the fact that these parties were not husband and wife when the offense was committed. The mother testified that her daughter and appellant were not husband and wife. She also testified that her daughter had lived with her continuously up to the time of and after the alleged offense, and it was further shown by the evidence of the deputy recorder of Bannock county that appellant, on April 19, 1920, which was about three weeks after the offense was alleged to have been committed, appeared in the recorder's office and made application for the issuance to him of a license to marry the girl. He made an affidavit in support of his application, which was in evidence. The marriage license was not issued because, in the words of the official, "the girl wasn't there to swear to the affidavit."

There is no question but that the absence of the marital relation is a necessary ingredient in the crime of rape. It must be alleged and proved. However, the absence of the relation may be proved by facts and circumstances from which the conclusion may be drawn. Direct and positive evidence is not necessary.

"In those jurisdictions wherein it is not necessary in a prosecution for rape to allege the nonmarriage of the parties to the act of intercourse, such fact need not be established as a part of the prosecution's case, and even where it is the rule that want of the marriage relation is an essential ingredient of the crime and must be alleged and proved, it is generally held that it is not absolutely necessary to prove that fact by direct and positive testimony; but, like any other fact, it may be proved by facts and circumstances from which the conclusion may be drawn." (22 R. C. L., p. 1221.)

See also to the same effect: State v. Cutler, 15 Ariz. 343, 138 P. 1048; People v. Allison, 44 Cal.App. 118, 185 P. 992; State v. Powell, 11 Okla. Crim. 615, 150 P. 92; Brenton v. Territory, 15 Okla. 6, 6 Ann. Cas. 769, 78 P. 83; State v. Lenord, 15 Ariz. 137, 137 P. 412; State v. May, 59 Wash. 414, Am. Ann. Cas. 1912B113, 109 P. 1026.

While it is true in this case that there is no direct or positive evidence, other than the testimony of the mother, that these parties were not husband and wife, still there are sufficient facts and circumstances in evidence which justified the jury in arriving at that...