State v. Lay, 32263.
| Decision Date | 24 June 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 32263.,32263. |
| Citation | 61 S.W.2d 738 |
| Parties | STATE v. LAY. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Crawford County; J. H. Bowron, Judge.
Claude Lay was convicted of abducting a female fourteen years of age from her father for purpose of concubinage, and he appeals.
Affirmed.
Roy McKittrick, Atty. Gen., and Franklin E. Reagan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
FITZSIMMONS, Commissioner.
Appellant was charged by information in the circuit court of Crawford county with the offense of taking Marie Michael away from her father for the purpose of concubinage; Marie Michael at the time being fourteen years of age and in the legal charge of her father. Upon trial appellant was found guilty and his punishment was assessed at two years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. From the sentence and judgment he appealed to this court.
The testimony discloses that Marie Michael in March, 1930, lived with her parents on Benton Creek in Crawford county. She was fourteen years old, the youngest of a houseful of children. Appellant lived with his wife and child on a farm about three-quarters of a mile from the Michael place. In March, 1930, appellant went to the Michael home and requested the mother to permit Marie to go to his home and stay with him as his wife was sick abed, there was a baby to be cared for, and he had no one to do anything. After some objection, Mrs. Michael gave permission for Marie to go and to stay for a week. Appellant in turn agreed to pay one dollar and a half for her services. Marie remained at appellant's house from March, 1930, to July 5, 1930, except for one week in June, during which time, with her father's permission, she worked in St. Louis. Appellant's wife left his home on July 4, 1930. Marie testified that the next day appellant informed her that he was going away, and that he would kill her if she did not go with him. She accordingly went. Appellant and the girl that day traveled to St. Louis, Mo., by truck, and thence to Detroit, Mich., by bus. Marie testified that appellant paid the truck and bus fares; that he rented a room in Detroit; that he and she occupied the room for two days and nights, and that there they repeatedly had sexual intercourse. In the meantime the girl's parents, with the aid of the sheriff of Crawford county, began a search. The Detroit police arrested appellant and the girl in the rented room and sent them back to Missouri, in the custody of the sheriff of Crawford county. Marie Michael's father testified that he did not consent that defendant might take her away from defendant's house to Detroit on July 5; that he did not know where she was after her departure until the Detroit police found her; that her home, up to July 5, was in her father's house. Appellant in his own behalf testified that he took the girl to St. Louis at her request, as she wished to return to work there. He denied that he had had intercourse with her. Appellant failed to file a brief, and we must examine his motion for a new trial for error.
I. Appellant assails the sufficiency of the evidence and the correctness of several instructions upon the ground that Marie Michael was out of the care and control of her father before she came in contact with appellant. Appellant was found guilty of the offense denounced by section 4009, Mo. St Ann., which provides that every person who shall take away any female under the age of eighteen years from her father, mother, guardian, or other person having the legal charge of her person either for the purpose of prostitution or concubinage shall upon conviction be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary not exceeding five years. The only meaning that we can give to appellant's objection is that he did not violate the statute because he took her away from his own house, where she had been staying in an employed capacity, and therefore that she was not under the care and control of her father at the time of the abduction. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Selle
...briefs prove themselves [State v. Taylor, Mo., 327 S.W.2d 880, 884(4); State v. Gaddy, Mo., 261 S.W.2d 65, 68(11, 13); State v. Lay, Mo., 61 S.W.2d 738, 739(6)], and certainly we should not and do not, on the unconfirmed assertion of counsel, impugn the integrity of those against whom this ......
- State v. Lay
-
State v. Edmisten, 47347
...custody" in § 565.150 to include unlawful retention of any person following a period of temporary lawful custody. See State v. Lay, 61 S.W.2d 738, 739 (Mo.1933). By "taking" his children from the lawful custody of their mother, knowing he had no legal right to do so, defendant committed the......