State v. Mathews

• Decision Date: 05 March 1907
• Citation: 100 S.W. 420,202 Mo. 143
• Parties: STATE v. MATHEWS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

100 S.W. 420

202 Mo. 143

STATE v. MATHEWS.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

March 5, 1907.

1. RAPE—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

Evidence on a trial for carnally knowing a female between the ages of 14 and 18 years, examined, and held to justify a conviction.

2. CRIMINAL LAW — VERDICT — CONCLUSIVENESS.

A verdict of conviction in a criminal case supported by substantial evidence and approved by the trial court will not be disturbed on the ground of the insufficiency of the evidence.

3. SAME—EVIDENCE—ADMISSIBILITY.

The state, in a criminal case, may prove by the prosecuting witness that while the case was pending accused begged her not to go ahead with the case, and threatened her, as showing an attempt on the part of accused to dissuade the prosecuting witness from appearing against him.

4. SAME—MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL—INCOMPETENCY OF JURORS.

To justify the court in sustaining a motion for a new trial on the ground of the incompetency of a juror in a criminal case, it must appear that accused or his attorneys did not know of the juror's incompetency at the time accused made his challenges.

5. SAME — PUNISHMENT—ASSESSMENT — STATUTES —VALIDITY.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1838 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1272], punishing as for felony a person guilty of the offense of carnally knowing an unmarried female between specified ages, is not in conflict with Const. art. 2, § 28 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 162], guarantying the right of trial by jury "as heretofore enjoyed," though it permits the court instead of the jury to assess the punishment.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Putnam County; Nat. M. Shelton, Judge.

John Mathews was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Tunnell & Hart, for appellant. The Attorney General and N. T. Gentry, for the State.

BURGESS, J.

At the August term, 1905, of the circuit court of Putman county was filed an amended information by the prosecuting attorney of said county charging the defendant, John Mathews, with carnally knowing one Myrtle Husted, an unmarried female of previously chaste character, between the ages of 14 and 18 years; and at an adjourned term of said court, commencing October 10, 1905, the trial resulted in the conviction of the defendant, and his punishment was assessed at two years in the penitentiary. Within four days thereafter the defendant filed a motion to reduce the punishment upon the ground that it was excessive, which motion was overruled, and the defendant duly excepted. Defendant then filed a motion for a new trial, assigning 25 reasons therefor. This motion was also overruled, and defendant excepted. He then asked leave to file a supplemental motion for a new trial, which was denied by the court, and defendant duly excepted. His motion in arrest of judgment being overruled, defendant appealed.

The state's evidence tended to prove that the defendant was a married man, and lived with his wife and two children less than a quarter of a mile from the home of Myrtle Husted, on land belonging to her father in Putnam county. According to her statement, which was corroborated by other witnesses, she attained to the age of 18 years on the 23d day of October, 1904. For some time prior to her reaching that age, the defendant had been making improper advances to the prosecutrix, and, about one month before she became of age, had sexual intercourse with her. The prosecuting witness further testified that defendant tried to have sexual intercourse with her three times prior thereto, but that there was no penetration. This first act of intercourse took place at the home of defendant, while the prosecuting witness was sitting on the side of the bed, her hands being behind her and she leaning back on them. The defendant's wife and children were at the home of Myrtle Husted at this time, which she fixed as the 27th or 28th of September, 1904. Some time in February following, defendant persuaded her to go with him to Iowa, and from there to Kansas, and on to Oregon, promising to get a divorce from his wife and to marry her. In Iowa, and at the other places where they visited, defendant and the girl registered at the hotels as husband and wife. She wrote their names on the hotel register, as defendant said he could not write. After defendant had been arrested and brought back to Putnam county, he went to see Myrtle Husted at her room in a hotel, grabbed hold of her and tried to persuade her to drop the case, again promising to marry her. The evidence also tended to prove that prosecutrix was an unmarried woman at the time of the commission of the crime charged, that she was of previously chaste character, and that the defendant was 34 years old. After the defendant had been arrested, in March, 1905, he stated to one James McGee and to Sheriff Crooks that he and Myrtle Husted had been having illicit intercourse for more than a year. The defendant's evidence tended to prove that prior to this trouble he enjoyed a good reputation for morality and as a truthful man. His evidence also tended to prove that the girl had...