State v. Moore

Citation78 Iowa 494,43 N.W. 273
PartiesSTATE v. MOORE.
Decision Date16 October 1889
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Appeal from district court, Winneshiek county; L. E. FELLOWS, Judge.

The defendant was convicted of the crime of seducing one Sarah J. French, an unmarried female of previously chaste character, and he appeals.L. Bullis, for appellant.

J. B. Kaye, Co. Atty., and John Y. Stone, Atty. Gen., for the State.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. It was alleged in the indictment that the crime was committed on or about February 1st in the year 1886, and the minutes of the evidence of the witnesses before the grand jury show that the defendant and the complaining witness first had sexual intercourse in March, 1884, and that the same continued, with an interval of about one year, until some time in the spring of 1886. In February of that year the complainant became pregnant, and was delivered of a bastard child, which was born October 30, 1886. In the introduction of the evidence the state sought to charge the defendant with the commission of the criminal act on or about the 25th day of July, 1885. The defendant objected to this on the ground that he was taken by surprise thereby. It has frequently been determined by this court that it is sufficient if the offense be shown to have been committed at any time within the period of the statute of limitations. State v. Bell, 49 Iowa, 440;State v. Kirkpatrick, 63 Iowa, 554, 19 N. W. Rep. 660;State v. Briggs, 68 Iowa, 416, 27 N. W. Rep. 358;State v. Wambold, 72 Iowa, 468, 34 N. W. Rep. 213. The indictment was found and presented on the 17th day of November, 1888, and as that was more than 18 months after the crime was committed, even as alleged in the indictment, it was averred therein that for two years after the commission of the offense the defendant was not usually and publicly resident within this state. By section 4166 of the Code an indictment for seduction must be found within 18 months after the commission of the crime. But it is provided in Code, § 4169, that “no period during which the party charged was not usually and publicly resident within the state is a part of the limitation.” So far as the claim of surprise is founded on the allegation of the indictment that defendant was not for two years usually and publicly resident within this state, we have to say that there is nothing in the record touching the proof of the defendant's residence, which, in the remotest degree, tends to show surprise. The defendant admitted, in his testimony, that he was absent from his home and neighborhood, and for part of such absence he was out of the state; and there is really no conflict in the evidence as to the duration of such absence. But, even if there were such conflict, the rule of the cases cited above, and other cases, is that the time named in the indictment is immaterial.

2. The evidence shows that the defendant visited the prosecuting witness in the capacity of a suitor. He accompanied her to dances, and visited her at the place of her residence, and, as the phrase goes, “kept company with her.” Some time after he commenced visiting her he had sexual intercourse with her. This occurred early in the year 1884. These acts of sexual intercourse were frequently repeated until about July 4, 1884, when, as the prosecuting witness testified, the parties quarreled, and there was no further intimacy between them for more than one year, and she claimed as a witness on the trial that during that time she had reformed, and became once more of chaste character, and that on the said 25th day of July, 1885, the defendant seduced her. We need not set out the evidence as to the absence of the defendant from the neighborhood and scene of his previous operations. The jury were fully warranted in finding that such...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • State v. Gardner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...point now in consideration. The following citations on part of appellant are relevant to nothing involved in this appeal: State v. Moore, 78 Iowa, 495, 43 N. W. 273;State v. Hasty, 121 Iowa, 507, 96 N. W. 1115;Wright v. Paige, 36 Barb. (N. Y.) 438;Cannon v. United States, 116 U. S. 55, 6 Su......
  • State v. Gardner
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • March 14, 1916
    ...... 300, upon which the state puts some reliance, was the case of. a woman charged with keeping a house of ill fame, and does. not touch the point now in consideration. The following. citations on part of appellant are relevant to nothing. involved in this appeal: State v. Moore , 78 Iowa. 494, 43 N.W. 273; State v. Hasty , 121 Iowa 507, 96. N.W. 1115; Wright v. Paige , 36 Barb. (N.Y.) 438;. Cannon v. United States , 116 U.S. 55, 118 U.S. 355,. 29 L.Ed. 561, 6 S.Ct. 278, 6 S.Ct. 1064; Commonwealth v. Sliney , 126 Mass. 49; and Sweenie v. State ,. (Neb.) 59 Neb. ......

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