State v. Mallonee

• Decision Date: 20 December 1910
• Parties: STATE v. MALLONEE.
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court

69 S.E. 786

154 N.C. 200

STATE v. MALLONEE.

Supreme Court of North Carolina

December 20, 1910

Appeal from Superior Court, Jackson County; J. S. Adams, Judge.

Jesse Mallonee was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.

J Frank Ray, for appellant.

The Attorney General and Geo. L. Jones, for the State.

WALKER J.

The defendant was indicted for the crime of seducing an innocent and virtuous woman under promise of marriage. Revisal 1905, § 3354. The statute provides that the unsupported testimony of the woman shall not be sufficient to convict. The prosecutrix testified to the promise of marriage, the seduction, and her innocence and virtue. A child was born to her, and was 18 months old at the time of the trial. There was evidence tending to show that prior to her alleged seduction by the defendant she had always been a woman of good character and led a blameless life, and that as a schoolgirl she had borne a good reputation with her teacher and schoolmates. This was sufficient to constitute supporting testimony within the meaning and requirement of the statute. State v Horton, 100 N.C. 443, 6 S.E. 238, 6 Am. St. Rep. 613; State v. Sharp, 132 Mo. 171, 33 S.W. 795; State v. Deitrick, 51 Iowa, 469, 1 N.W. 732; State v Bryan, 34 Kan. 72, 8 P. 260; Zabriskie v. State, 43 N. J. Law, 644, 39 Am. Rep. 610. The proof of chastity should relate to the time preceding the seduction or the date when it became known, as it is manifest that her reputation in that regard would be injuriously affected by the offense itself when revealed, and the very crime would thus become the means of protecting the criminal, and the more notorious the seduction, and the more extensively her shame had been published to the world, the more certain would be the immunity from punishment. People v. Brewer, 27 Mich. 134. We do not see how the innocence and virtue of a woman could be shown by testimony additional to her own, unless her reputation is competent evidence for the jury to consider. It would be a negative and a fact most difficult if not impossible to establish. It is settled by the authorities that the supporting evidence need be such only as the nature of the fact required to be proved admits of being furnished. Armstrong v. People, 70 N.Y. 38.

There was supporting evidence as to the promise of marriage. The defendant admitted to the brother of the prosecutrix that he was engaged to be married to her. This was sufficient if it fully satisfied the jury of the fact. State v. Raynor, 145 N.C. 472, 59 S.E. 344; State v. Horton, supra; State v. Kincaid, 142 N.C. 657, 55 S.E. 647; State v. Ring, 142 N.C. 596, 55 S.E. 194, 115 Am. St. Rep. 759.

We said in State v. Ring, supra, that it is sufficient if the jury can fairly infer from the evidence that the seduction was accomplished by reason of the promise of marriage, giving to the defendant the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and that no set form of words is necessary to show the causal relation between the promise and the act of sexual intercourse. In Armstrong v. People, supra, it is held that the illicit act and the immediate persuasions and inducements which led to its commission, may not be susceptible of proof by the evidence of third persons directly to the fact. They are to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case. So in this case we have as proof of the several elements of the crime-- that is, the innocence and...