State v. McCarroll

• Court: Supreme Court of Oregon
• Writing for the Court: RAND, C.J.
• Citation: 261 P. 411,123 Or. 173
• Parties: STATE v. MCCARROLL.
• Decision Date: 29 November 1927

261 P. 411

123 Or. 173

STATE
v.
MCCARROLL.

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.

RAND, C.J.

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...