State v. Luckett

• Decision Date: 09 December 1922
• Docket Number: No. 23367.,23367.
• Citation: 246 S.W. 881
• Parties: STATE v. LUCKETT
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

246 S.W. 881

STATE v. LUCKETT

No. 23367.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 9, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Dunklin County.

Fred Luckett was convicted of carnal knowledge of a girl under the age of consent, and appeals. Affirmed.

Hall & Billings, of Kennett, for appellant.

Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Albert Miller, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

WHITE, C.

On the 17th day of January, 1921, on a trial before a jury in the circuit court of Dunklin county, the appellant was found guilty of violation of section 3248, R. S. 1919, in that he did feloniously carnally know and abuse one Ava Foley, an unmarried female of previous chaste character, between the ages of 15 and 18 years. From the judgment rendered upon that conviction he appealed.

The evidence for the state tends to show that on the 6th day of April, 1919, when Ava Foley was 15 years of age, the defendant made an attack upon her in her own home in Dunklin county. From the intimacy that ensued a child was born January 1, 1920. The state also introduced evidence to show that Ava Foley was at that time unmarried, of previous chaste character, and of good reputation. The defendant denied all the facts which the state attempted to prove, offered evidence to show an alibi; that he was elsewhere at a baseball game in the afternoon of the day the act is alleged to have occurred. The defendant also made a vigorous attack upon the character of Ava Foley, by introducing evidence to show that she had been intimate with several other boys. Evidence was offered in an attempt to show that she had a bad reputation prior to April 6, 1919. On cross-examination she admitted acts of intimacy with three or four other boys, which she claimed occurred after the 6th of April, 1919. The age of the defendant was also in issue, and the state offered evidence to show that Luckett was over the age of 17 years at the time. Letters were introduced by the defendant, which were claimed to have been written by Ava Foley to one of the young men with whom she was intimate. In those letters the writer expressed some doubt as to whom she should lay the charge against. The letters were supposed to have been written to Willie Miller, and indicate that the writer thought the recipient of the letters was the author of her trouble. The letters were without address, no name is mentioned in them, excepting that they are signed "Ava." The prosecuting witness denied having written such letters, and the evidence of her authorship was very scanty. On this evidence the jury returned a verdict of guilty and assessed the defendant's punishment at $100 fine and six months' imprisonment in the county jail.

I. The appellant complains of error in the reception of several items of evidence over his objections and exceptions. In nearly every instance where such complaint is made the record shows that at the time the objection was made no specific reason for the incompetency of the evidence was offered. The objections were, "Object as immaterial," "We object to that answer," and others of like character. These are not sufficient to apprise the trial court and the opposing counsel of the particular reason why the evidence is objectionable. Specific grounds of objection must be stated in order to have the alleged error reviewed. Heinbach v. Heinbach, 274 Mo. loc. cit. 315, 202 S. W. 1123; Morton v. Lloyd Construction Co., 280 Mo. loc. cit. 380, 217 S. W. 831; State v. Hall (Mo. Sup.) 231 S. W. loc. cit. 1003, 1004.

Objection was made to questions attempting to show the age of the defendant. One witness testified that she knew him in the spring of 1903; she fixed the date on account of the death of her father. The witness then mentioned the apparent age of the defendant as a child at that time. The defendant objected that that was not a proper way to prove the age. We think the evidence was proper. While the evidence relating to the defendant's age was quite feeble, it was sufficient to support the verdict; he made no attempt to show that he was under the age of 17 years at the time of the alleged offense.

III. It is claimed that there was an illegal cross-examination of the defendant. The motion for new trial fails to assign any error to the cross-examination of the defendant, and therefore the assignment cannot be considered.

IV. Appellant complains of the exclusion of testimony of several witnesses attempting to show specific acts of immorality and an unchaste mind on the part of the prosecuting witness. She was mercilessly cross-examined as to acts of alleged immorality with other boys, and compelled to answer. This evidence was offered for the purpose of impeaching her. The reputation of the prosecuting witness for virtue of course was in issue as affecting her credibility, but a bad reputation in that respect could not be shown by proof of specific immoral acts. State v. Allen (Mo. Sup.) 234 S. W. loc. cit. 843; State v. Osborne, No. 23747, 246 S. W. 878, decided at this term of court, and not yet [officially] reported. The appellant was given great latitude in his effort to discredit the prosecuting witness, and a great deal of evidence was allowed which the appellant had no right to introduce; he is not in position to complain of unfairness on the part of the court in that respect.

In that connection the defendant made an offer like this: He offered to prove that once...