State v. McCarroll

CourtSupreme Court of Oregon
Writing for the CourtRAND, C.J.
Citation261 P. 411,123 Or. 173
Decision Date29 November 1927

261 P. 411

123 Or. 173


Supreme Court of Oregon

November 29, 1927

In Bank.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Umatilla County; Gilbert W. Phelps, Judge.

Ray McCarroll was convicted of statutory rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

[123 Or. 174] E. H. Kohlhase, of Kelso, Wash., and Home I. Watts, of Athena, for appellant.

F. E. Schmidt, Deputy Dist. Atty., of Pendleton (C. C. Proebstel, Dist. Atty., and James A. Fee, both of Pendleton, on the brief), for the State.


The defendant was convicted of the crime of rape upon Dorothy Miller, a female child [123 Or. 175] under the age of 16 years, and appeals from the judgment imposed. During the progress of the trial, defendant was a witness in his own behalf, and there are but two assignments of error. They relate to questions which were asked the defendant on his cross-examination and to the introduction of evidence by other witnesses contradicting the answers which he gave to such questions. For a proper understanding of these assignments, it is necessary to make a short statement of the facts material thereto.

The prosecutrix testified that the defendant had had illicit relations with her when she was but 12 years of age, and that such relations continued until she became pregnant with child, which was later born in a lying-in [261 P. 412] hospital in Portland. During the period in question, she was living with her parents at Pendleton, and defendant, a married man having a wife and five children, was also living at or near the same place. After becoming pregnant, prosecutrix left Pendleton and went to the home of her grandmother at Ogden, Utah, and while there her grandmother discovered her condition and wrote a letter to her parents, informing them of her condition. At that time the two families were on very friendly terms, and, not knowing of defendant's relations with their daughter, they disclosed the contents of the letter to him. Both Mr. and Mrs. Miller testified that defendant advised them to have an abortion performed upon the child, and that he, knowing that they were without means, offered to advance the money for that purpose. Mrs. Miller, the mother of prosecutrix, decided to go to Ogden to see her daughter, and borrowed $30 from defendant to cover her expenses. Upon her arrival there, she sent a telegram to defendant requesting him to send her $100, which he [123 Or. 176] did, and a few days later she sent another telegram, requesting $150 additional. Defendant had some difficulty in procuring the latter sum, but finally borrowed it from one of the banks upon securing the indorsement of one of his friends. Before the sum last called for was sent, Mrs. Miller, while at Ogden, had a conversation over the telephone with the defendant, and, according to her testimony, she informed him that she had learned that he was the one responsible for the condition of her child, and told him that he had better send the money. Whatever her purpose for borrowing said sums from...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • State v. Ewing
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • May 1, 1944 confined to relevant matters only — to facts to which he has testified tending to his conviction or acquittal. State v. McCarroll, 123 Or. 173, 261 P. 411; State v. Stillwell, 109 Or. 643, 221 P. 174; State v. Deal, 52 Or. 568, 98 P. 165. Under the rule of the McAllister and Start cases,......
  • Smith v. White
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 20, 1962
    ...on the party cross-examining him. Houser et al. v. Heider et al., supra; Peters v. Consolidated Freight Lines, supra; State v. McCarroll, 123 Or. 173, 177, 261 P. The testimony that the defendant and Doctor Failor had never heard of a 40-pound blow was not brought out on cross-examination, ......
  • State v. Cruse
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • June 27, 1962
    ...statute permits cross-examination upon all matters 'properly germane to and connected with' the testimony in chief. State v. McCarroll, 123 Or. 173, 177, 261 P. 411 (1927); State v. Stilwell, 109 Or. 643, 663, 221 P. 174 (1923); State v. Wong Wen Teung, 99 Or. 95, 107, 195 P. 349 (1921); St......
  • State v. Wolfe
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • November 14, 1975
    ...issue. See McCormick on Evidence 2d 98--100, § 47 (1972); Smith v. White, 231 Or. 425, 432--433, 372 P.2d 483 (1962); State v. McCarroll, 123 Or. 173, 177, 261 P. 411 In this case defendant made no offer of proof at the time of the ruling by the trial court that it would not permit the witn......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT