State v. McIntire
| Decision Date | 09 October 1893 |
| Citation | 56 N.W. 419,89 Iowa 139 |
| Parties | STATE v. MCINTIRE. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from district court, Monroe county; H. C. Traverse, Judge.
Indictment for seduction. Verdict of guilty, and a judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed.J. C. Mabry, Ed. Morrison, and D. H. Anderson, for appellant.
Fred Townsend, McCarhan & Richmond, John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., and Thos. A. Cheshire, for the State.
1. There is a claim that the verdict has not sufficient support in the testimony. We think it such as to forbid our interference. In fact, it has stronger support than many cases that have been affirmed in this court. That the defendant had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix is hardly a doubtful question. The principal contention as to facts is as to the time of the intercourse and the previous chastity of the prosecutrix. Great importance is attached by appellant, in argument, to the fact that her testimony fixed as the time of the intercourse, the 27th day of August, while the testimony of several other witnesses shows that the parties were not together on that day. Of course, the particular time of the intercourse may be important in determining the fact of seduction,--that is, the truth of the statements made by the prosecutrix,--but it is not essential to sustain a conviction, and the court so instructed the jury. The testimony of the prosecutrix shows a continued courtship between herself and the defendant of some months, covering a period both before and after the 27th day of August, which she quite positively fixes as the day of their intercourse. Taking her testimony together, it does not appear that she is absolutely positive as to the exact time, but it is said by her that it was in August. The record is by no means a showing that the act was on that particular day, or not at all; nor does it present a state of facts showing that if it was not on that particular date her testimony is entirely unworthy of credit.
The argument makes quite conspicuous certain acts of the prosecutrix as indicating a want of chastity on her part, and to such an extent, it is urged, as to overcome the finding of the jury. We do not concur in this view. If we agree with counsel that her acts were indiscreet, or even such as might awaken suspicion, still they do not rise to the importance claimed for them in argument. The testimony shows that at times, when escorted home by a male friend, and on the first occasion, she permitted them to “kiss her good night,” and it is said she went so far as to allow them to “hug her.” It is for conduct of this character that her unchastity is urged. We have said that no particular amount or degree of such manners or conversations can be set down as conclusive evidence of an unchaste character. State v. Andre, 5 Iowa, 389; Same v. Hemm, 82 Iowa, 609, 48 N. W. Rep. 971.
2. Defendant asked the following instruction: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Rolling, 33724.
...protests of love and other acts not inconsistent with a marriage engagement.” As bearing on the same question, see, also, State v. McIntire, 89 Iowa, 139, 56 N. W. 419, and State v. Hector, 158 Iowa, 664, 138 N. W. 930. The case comes squarely within the rule recognized by this court. The j......
- State v. McIntire
-
State v. Rolling
... ... not preclude the jury from giving consideration to her ... testimony as a whole, which discloses protests of love and ... other acts not inconsistent with a marriage engagement." ... As ... bearing on the same question, see, also, State v ... McIntire, 89 Iowa 139, 56 N.W. 419, and State v ... Hector, 158 Iowa 664, 138 N.W. 930 ... The ... case comes squarely within the rule recognized by this court ... The jury was fully warranted, under the evidence, in finding ... such arts and promises on the part of the defendant ... ...