State v. Meals

• Decision Date: 22 November 1904
• Citation: 184 Mo. 244,83 S.W. 442
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE v. MEALS.

83 S.W. 442

184 Mo. 244

STATE v. MEALS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

November 22, 1904.

SEDUCTION — EVIDENCE — INSTRUCTIONS — REMARKS OF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY — ERROR — PRESERVATION IN BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

1. Evidence on a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage examined, and held to support a conviction.

2. Where, on a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage, the court charged that if defendant had carnal intercourse with the prosecutrix, and if she yielded to him on account of the promise of marriage, without the practice by him of blandishments, she was not seduced, the refusal to charge that, though defendant had intercourse with the prosecutrix, yet, if she consented thereto in consideration of a promise then and there made by him, he should be acquitted, was not error.

3. An instruction on a prosecution for seduction under promise of marriage that if the prosecutrix agreed with defendant that he might have sexual intercourse with her, provided he would agree to marry her, and defendant agreed, and defendant had intercourse under the agreement, and prior to such agreement there was no promise to marry, there was no seduction, is not open to the objection that it negatives the right to an acquittal if defendant had ever promised to marry the prosecutrix, when read in connection with an instruction requiring the jury to find every fact necessary to constitute the offense before they could convict.

4. An instruction on a trial for seduction under promise of marriage that, though defendant had carnal intercourse with the prosecutrix, and she consented to it in consideration of a promise made by defendant that he would marry her, "and do not find that defendant was seduced by said promise," defendant should be acquitted is not ground for reversal, for using the word "defendant" in the quoted clause, instead of the word "prosecutrix"; it being obvious that the word "prosecutrix" was intended.

5. It must appear from the bill of exceptions that the remarks of the prosecuting attorney to the jury were objected to at the time, and exception saved, before the court will review the error arising from such remarks.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; D. H. Eby, Judge.

James Meals was convicted of crime, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This is an appeal by the defendant from a conviction for seduction under promise of marriage. There were two counts in the indictment. At the close of the state's case, upon motion of defendant, the court required the state to elect upon which count it would stand, and, in obedience to such requirement by the court, the state elected to stand upon the second count, which is here reproduced: "And the grand jurors, aforesaid, upon their oaths aforesaid, do further present and charge that the said James Meals, late of the county aforesaid, on the twentieth day of August, A. D. 1902, at and in said county of Monroe and state of Missouri, did then and there, under and by promise of marriage made to one Clara Belle McNear by him, the said James Meals, unlawfully and feloniously seduce and debauch her, the said Clara Belle McNear, she, the said Clara Belle McNear, being then and there an unmarried female of good repute, and under twenty-one years of age, against the peace and dignity of the state." Upon the trial the state introduced Clara Belle McNear, the prosecuting witness, as well as her mother. These two witnesses were the principal ones as to the main facts upon which this prosecution rests. The testimony of the mother and daughter showed substantially this state of facts: That the prosecutrix and defendant had known each other from early childhood. That during the girlhood of the prosecutrix defendant visited her sister, who subsequently married, after which the defendant began to visit the prosecutrix. He soon began to avow his great admiration for her, and she for him. It seems that their friendship soon ripened into a sincere regard, which culminated into mutual love. At any rate, the protestations of each warrant such conclusion. The wedding day was set, and preparations were made by the prosecutrix for that event. It seems that defendant also made some preparations for the conjugal state, by furnishing a home in which they were to dwell. The parties were often in each other's company. Prior to the time set for the wedding, the defendant began to importune the prosecutrix to submit herself to his lustful passions; fortifying his request with protestations of his love, and assurance of their early marriage. The prosecutrix yielded to his solicitations on three occasions; the last illicit congress occurring about the 18th day of October, 1902. As a result of this liaison, a child was born July 3, 1903. It showed evidence of a premature birth. The prosecutrix was 17 years of age; the defendant, 29. The prosecutrix was corroborated in her declarations that defendant had promised to marry her by admissions made by defendant to her mother and by numerous circumstances. On behalf of the state much evidence was adduced tending to show the good reputation of the prosecutrix for virtue and chastity. The defendant introduced evidence of a contrary effect. The state further showed that defendant had offered $50 to witness Murphy if he would swear that he had had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix. Defendant introduced testimony as to the bad reputation of the prosecutrix, and the good reputation of himself, for virtue, chastity, and morality. Defendant himself testified; admitted that at intervals he had been in the company of the prosecutrix, but denied all other incriminating evidence, except as to having sexual intercourse, and upon that subject he did not testify at all. At the close of the testimony the court declared the law as follows

No. 2 Requested by Defendant.

"The court instructs the jury that if you shall find and believe from the evidence in the case that the defendant had carnal intercourse with Clara Belle McNear, and that she yielded to him on account of the promise of marriage, and without the practice by him of arts or blandishments, then, even though she may have been of good repute, she was not seduced, and the jury should acquit."

State's Instructions.

"(1) If verbal statements of the defendant have been proven in the case, you may take them into consideration with all the other facts and circumstances proven. What the proof may show you, if anything, that the defendant has said against himself, the law presumes to be true, because against himself; but anything you may believe from the evidence the defendant said in his own behalf you are not obliged to believe, but you may treat the same as true or false, just as you believe it true or false when considered with a view to all the other facts and circumstances in the case."

Instructions Given by the Court of Its Own Motion.

"(1) The court instructs the jury that the indictment in this cause, and read to the jury, is a mere formal charge or accusation against the defendant, and is not any evidence of his guilt.

"(2) The court instructs the jury that if they believe and find from the evidence in the cause, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant, in Monroe county, Missouri, at any time within three years next before the 10th day of April, 1903, did then and there, under or by promise of marriage, seduce and debauch Clara Belle McNear, and that said Clara Belle McNear was then and there an unmarried female of good repute, and under the age of twenty-one years, then the jury should find the defendant guilty as charged in the second count of the indictment. To authorize a conviction in this case, you must believe and find not only that said Clara Belle McNear was at the time of the seduction, if any, a woman of good repute in the community in which she lived, and among those who know her, and that she was then single and unmarried and under twenty-one years of age, and that defendant did in fact seduce and debauch her, but you must positively believe and find from the evidence in the cause that he accomplished this under or by a promise to marry her; that she believed his promise to be in good faith, and that, so believing, she accepted it, and consented to become, and by him be made, his wife, and that subsequently to such promise, if any, she was seduced and debauched by defendant; and, to support the charge of such promise of marriage, it is necessary that her evidence be supported by that of other witnesses, or by corroboration of acts or circumstances which convince your minds of the truth of her testimony in that respect. A female is said to be `seduced,' within the meaning of that term, as used in this instruction, when by arts and blandishments she is deceived, corrupted, and drawn aside from the right path. She is said to be `debauched,' within the meaning of that term as used in the instructions, when she is carnally known. Every illicit connection is not seduction. It cannot be said that a female is drawn aside from the path of virtue unless she is honestly pursuing that path when approached. If her mind is corrupt and polluted by lewd thoughts, and she is ready to submit to improper embraces, as opportunity offers, from her own lustful propensity, and without any arts or blandishments of him with whom she has sexual intercourse, in such case she cannot be said to be seduced by the party with whom she has improper sexual relations. If the jury find from the evidence that the defendant had illicit connection with said Clara Belle McNear under or by promise of marriage, but further find that there was no seduction, within the meaning of the word as already defined, they will find the defendant not guilty.

"(2½) The jury cannot find that there was a promise of marriage upon the evidence of Clara Belle McNear alone, but, under the law, her evidence as to the promise of marriage must be corroborated; that is, confirmed either by other direct or...