State v. McCaskey

• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Thomas
• Citation: State v. McCaskey, 104 Mo. 644, 16 S.W. 511 (Mo. 1891)
• Decision Date: 02 June 1891
• Parties: STATE v. McCASKEY.

16 S.W. 511

104 Mo. 644

STATE v. McCASKEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

June 2, 1891.

SEDUCTION — EVIDENCE — CORROBORATION.

1. Rev. St. Mo. 1879, § 1912, provides that, in trials for seduction under promise of marriage, the evidence of the woman as to such promise must be corroborated. Held that, though evidence of circumstances which usually accompany the engagement are sufficient supporting evidence, the existence of such circumstances must be shown by other testimony than that of the woman herself.

2. Though the law presumes that every woman is chaste and of good repute, it also presumes every one innocent of crime till proven guilty, and in prosecutions for seduction the burden is on the state to allege and prove in the first instance that the woman is of good repute.

3. It is the duty of the court, in plain and concise language, to define the offense accurately, and tell the jury the essential facts necessary to a conviction, rather than to refer them to the indictment to determine what they must find in order to convict.

Appeal from circuit court, Polk county; W. I. WALLACE, Judge.

A. A. Underwood and B. J. Emerson, for appellant. The Attorney General, for the State.

THOMAS, J.

The defendant was indicted in the Polk county circuit court for seduction under promise of marriage, was tried therefor, and sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of two years.

1. The state stood on the uncorroborated evidence of the prosecuting witness in this case. She testified defendant promised to marry her, and under and by virtue of that promise seduced her. Section 1912, Rev. St. 1879, provides that, "in trials for seduction under promise of marriage, the evidence of the woman, as to such promise, must be corroborated to the same extent required of the principal witness in perjury." It has been held by this court that "evidence of circumstances which usually accompany the marriage engagement will satisfy the statute as to supporting evidence." State v. Hill, 91 Mo. 423, 4 S. W. Rep. 121. Here the prosecuting witness testifies to the promise, and also to "the circumstances attending the marriage engagement," and the state argues that that satisfies the statute. It is the evidence of the woman as to the promise of marriage that must be corroborated. There must be some evidence independent of the principal witness as to the promise of marriage. In this case there is an attempt to evade this plain statutory provision by the principal witness testifying, first, to the promise of marriage, and then to "the circumstances" that corroborate her. This is clearly not the law. She must be corroborated by some witness other than herself....