State v. Knock

• Decision Date: 01 February 1898
• Citation: 44 S.W. 235,142 Mo. 515
• Parties: STATE v. KNOCK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

44 S.W. 235

142 Mo. 515

STATE v. KNOCK.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

February 1, 1898.

DEBAUCHING FEMALE — INDICTMENT — EVIDENCE.

1. A count is not double, even if it charges two offenses, where it charges but one of them sufficiently.

2. Abandonment of the first count of an indictment, in which oath of grand jurors is recited, does not prevent reference to it in the second count, thus: "And the said grand jurors aforesaid, on their oath aforesaid, do further say."

3. Though one use force, he may be convicted under Act April 8, 1895, § 1, declaring a punishment for any person over 16 who shall have carnal knowledge of any unmarried female, of previous chaste character, between the ages of 14 and 18.

4. Evidence against the character of the female, on prosecution for having carnal knowledge of a female between the ages of 14 and 16, "of previous chaste character" (Act April 8, 1895, § 1), is not admissible, it not being shown to have reference to time before defendant debauched her.

5. Letter of mother of prosecutrix to defendant, offering to hush up the matter for a consideration, is res inter alios, and not admissible on his trial.

Appeal from criminal court, Jackson county; John W. Wofford, Judge.

James H. Knock appeals from a conviction. Affirmed.

Kagy & Bremermaun, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam. B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

The legal basis of this prosecution is the following statute:

"Section 1. If any person over the age of sixteen years shall have carnal knowledge of any unmarried female, of previously chaste character, between the ages of fourteen and eighteen years of age, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years, or by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than one month or more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. Approved April 8, 1895." Laws 1895, p. 149.

The basis of fact is furnished by the statement of the attorney general (which, on comparison with the record, is found to be correct, and therefore adopted), to wit:

The prosecuting witness, Katie Lee Holmes, lived with her parents at Jerseyville, in the state of Illinois. She was born on the 15th day of May, 1879, and was therefore 16 years of age at the time the offense was committed upon her. In the later part of the autumn of 1894 she visited her uncle, the defendant, James Knock, in Kansas City, Jackson county, Mo. She again visited him and his family in the same city, during the months of October, November, and December, 1895. It was while she was upon this last visit that the crime was committed. Defendant lived with his wife in a two-story store building, on the corner of Thirtieth and Wyandotte streets, in Kansas City. On the night of the 7th of October of the year in question, the defendant's wife left home to visit her sister in Jerseyville, Ill. Defendant and the prosecuting witness went with her to the railroad station, and, after the train had departed, returned to his home, arriving there about 9 o'clock p. m. About 10 o'clock Miss Holmes retired, occupying the same room she was accustomed to occupy when her aunt was at home. There was no other person in the house save defendant. The defendant occupied a room separate and apart from that in which Miss Holmes slept. The sleeping apartments to which they had, respectively, retired were on the second floor of the building. After the young lady had gone to sleep she was aroused by the presence of the defendant, who was attempting to get on top of her. He grabbed her hands, and held them over her mouth, to prevent her screaming. With his knees he forced her legs apart, and had sexual intercourse with her. Again, on Thanksgiving Day, in November, 1895, defendant had killed a turkey, and the blood had "splashed" all over the young woman's dress. She went upstairs for the purpose of changing her clothing, and while there commenced combing her hair. Defendant entered the room where she was, and told her if she screamed he would kill her. His wife was downstairs getting dinner. He pushed her over on the bed, pulled up her clothing, and, using his knees to separate her legs as before, had sexual intercourse with her. She suffered great pain, and became very sick. After defendant had accomplished his purpose, he told her to "hurry up, and go downstairs." On the morning of the 7th day of December, 1895, defendant went into the room in which she was sleeping, and again had sexual intercourse with her, under similar circumstances, and in about the same manner as the first time. The act was repeated on the morning of the 14th and 21st days of December, 1895. Upon each occurrence he cautioned her to say nothing about it, threatening, and telling her it would go as hard with one as the other. He also told her that if she told any one he would tell that she was of bad character. She frequently told him she was going home, but he would not agree to it, and, as she was without any money, she could not leave. However, after the last intercourse was had, she wrote to her mother for money to return home, and on the 30th day of December left the residence of the defendant for Jerseyville Ill. As a result of the criminal connection by defendant with the prosecuting witness she became pregnant, and on the 18th day of August, 1896, at Pacific, Mo., gave birth to a male child. The prosecuting witness stated that she had never been married; that she had never had intercourse with any person other than defendant; and that he was the father of the child born to her at Pacific, Mo. Evidence was also introduced showing that the prosecutrix was possessed of an untarnished character for chastity and virtue in Jerseyville, Ill. It was attempted to besmirch her character as to the brief period she stopped in Kansas City, but, if such evidence were true, it does not appear when such reputation was acquired, — whether before or after the perpetration of the crime with which defendant is charged. Defendant denied the perpetration of the offense. But it was testified to that he had asked a question which indicated an...