State v. Norman

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtLADD, J.
Citation140 N.W. 815,160 Iowa 158
PartiesSTATE OF IOWA v. GROVER NORMAN, Appellant
Decision Date09 April 1913

140 N.W. 815

160 Iowa 158

STATE OF IOWA
v.
GROVER NORMAN, Appellant

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

April 9, 1913


Appeal from Fremont District Court.--HON. A. B. THORNELL, Judge.

THE defendant, having been convicted of the crime of seduction, appeals.

Affirmed.

Tinley, Mitchell & Thornell, for appellant.

George Cosson, Attorney-General, and John Fletcher, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

OPINION [140 N.W. 816]

LADD, J.

The accused was indicted in March, 1912, for having seduced prosecutrix in November previous, and was [160 Iowa 159] convicted in April following. He contends that the conviction was erroneous in that: (1) Prosecutrix was not proven to have been an unmarried woman; and (2) was proven to have been of unchaste character. There was no direct evidence that prosecutrix was unmarried, but she testified that she had lived with her parents all her life, told where they had lived and stated that her parents, two brothers, three sisters, with herself, constituted the family. Her mother also testified that she had lived with her all her life. Counsel for defendant repeatedly, during her cross-examination and in examining defendant, referred to her as "Miss Le Fever," and the defendant, in relating an incident, testified that "Miss Mae Le Fever went with me to the theater."

I. She was but twenty-three years of age, and the trial evidently proceeded on the theory that she was a single woman. More strict proof of status may be exacted in some states. See People v. Krusick, 93 Cal. 74 (28 P. 794); State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658 (18 S.W. 924). But all that is essential, under the decisions of this court, is that the facts and circumstances disclosed be such as to fairly warrant the inference that prosecutrix was unmarried at the time of the seduction alleged. State v. Moffit, 155 Iowa 702, 136 N.W. 908; State v. Heatherton, 60 Iowa 175, 14 N.W. 230; Breiner v. Nugent, 136 Iowa 322, 111 N.W. 446; Egan v. Murray, 80 Iowa 180, 45 N.W. 563. Enough appears in the record to justify the finding of the jury.

II. Nor should the jury's finding that prosecutrix was of previous unchaste character be interfered with.

She was presumed to have been chaste and no evidence whatever bearing thereon, except of her relations with defendant, was adduced. The development of their intimacy was rapid; but if, as the jury might have concluded, defendant began paying his attentions with the purpose of gratifying his passions,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 practice notes
  • Harris v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 9, 1913
    ...or knowledge of the limitation in the decree affecting their right to the use and occupancy of the premises, and we therefore hold that [160 Iowa 158] the court erred in holding the petitioner herein, Harris, [140 N.W. 834] guilty of contempt under the facts disclosed in this case, and the ......
1 cases
  • Harris v. Hutchison
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 9, 1913
    ...or knowledge of the limitation in the decree affecting their right to the use and occupancy of the premises, and we therefore hold that [160 Iowa 158] the court erred in holding the petitioner herein, Harris, [140 N.W. 834] guilty of contempt under the facts disclosed in this case, and the ......

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