State v. Mace
| Decision Date | 22 December 1925 |
| Docket Number | 26455 |
| Citation | 278 S.W. 718 |
| Parties | STATE v. MACE |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Robert W. Otto, Atty. Gen., (Earl E. Roberts, of Steelville, of counsel), for the State.
In the circuit court of Texas county, on April 24, 1924, the defendant was found guilty of statutory rape, and his punishment assessed at two years in the state penitentiary. The indictment on which he was tried charged that on or about the -- day of April, he had carnal knowledge of one Etta Lee, a female child under the age of 16 years, the defendant at the time being a male person over the age of 18 years.
The evidence showed that Etta Lee lived near Edenville, in Texas county; that Jasper Mace overtook her in the afternoon on her way home from a neighbor's house. She was walking, and he was on horseback. He got off his horse and walked with her and finally made his attack upon her. This occurred some time in the spring of 1922. Later in April, 1922, she saw him at the post office at Baldrich. After she started home he intercepted her on the way and again assaulted her. On cross-examination she admitted she made no outcry and did not tell her parents until she had to do so. Her father and mother each testified to her age as being 14 years in April 1922. Each of them stated she did not tell her condition nor admit it until perceived by them, and she gave birth to a child. The defendant denied entirely an assault upon the girl, and introduced evidence to show that he was elsewhere at the time of the alleged crime.
No brief is filed on behalf of the defendant. The only errors assigned in the motion for new trial relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to submit the case to the jury, the admitting of incompetent evidence on the part of the state, and the giving of instructions.
I. The evidence was entirely sufficient and warranted the jury in finding the defendant guilty as charged. The only important error assigned to the admission of evidence related to a book kept by the girl's mother, in which she had recorded the ages of her children. It showed that the girl was born May 13, 1907, which would make her not 15 years of age at the time of the occurrence. The objection to this entry was that it was made long after the birth. The mother admitted that she made the entry in the book two or three years after the birth of the girl, but stated on cross-examination that she knew exactly when...
To continue reading
Request your trial