State v. Oakes

• Decision Date: 05 March 1907
• Citation: 202 Mo. 86,100 S.W. 434
• Parties: STATE v. OAKES.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

100 S.W. 434

202 Mo. 86

STATE v. OAKES.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

March 5, 1907.

1. CRIMINAL LAW—FORMER JEOPARDY.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1845 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276], makes it a felony for any person to whose protection any female under 18 shall have been confided to defile her while in his care or custody. The first count of an indictment charged defendant with having had carnal knowledge of an unmarried female between the ages of 14 and 18 years of previously chaste character. The second charged defendant under section 1845. Defendant was found guilty under the second count and acquitted of the charge in the first count. He obtained a new trial, but before trial filed a plea setting up his acquittal of the charge in the first count, alleging that the offense charged in the second count grew out of the same transaction as that contained in the first count, and that the evidence given on the impending trial would be the same as on the first trial. Held, that the question presented by the plea was one of law for the court, which properly sustained the state's demurrer to such plea.

2. SEDUCTION—FEMALE IN CARE OF DEFENDANT.

The fact that sexual intercourse between a school teacher and his pupil under the age of 18 years occurred after school hours, was no defense to a prosecution under Rev. St. 1899, § 1845 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276].

3. CRIMINAL LAW—APPEAL—HARMLESS ERROR.

Failure to give the jury the usual instruction on admissions or statements made by accused, to the effect that what he said against himself should be taken as true, in relation to certain letters written by him, which tended to show admissions on his part, was not prejudicial to accused.

4. SAME—TRIAL—APPLICATION OF INSTRUCTIONS TO CASE.

Rev. St. 1899, § 1845 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276], makes it a felony for any person to whose care any female under 18 years of age shall have been confided to defile her while she remains in his care or custody. Held, that where, on a prosecution under the statute, it appeared that defendant was a school teacher and prosecutrix his pupil, and that he visited her at her home nights when her mother was asleep and when the mother was away from home, and on such occasions the intercourse took place, it was proper to refuse a requested instruction that, if defendant's visits were made with the knowledge or consent of the mother, it terminated for the time the relation of pupil and teacher, and that defendant should be acquitted.

5. SEDUCTION—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

On a prosecution under Rev. St. 1899, § 1845 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276], evidence considered, and held sufficient to warrant a conviction.

6. SEDUCTION—FEMALE IN CARE OF DEFENDANT.

Rev. St. 1899. § 1845 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276], makes it a felony for any person to whose care any female under 18 years of age shall have been confided to defile her while she remains in his care or custody. Held, that where a school teacher had intercourse with a female pupil under 18 years of age, who resided with her mother, and whose father was dead, the fact that the mother had knowledge that the teacher was having intercourse with the daughter and consented thereto, was no defense to a prosecution against him under the statute.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Henry County; N. M. Bradley, Special Judge.

Jesse A. Oakes was convicted of defiling his ward, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This cause is here upon appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Henry county circuit court convicting him, under the provisions of section 1845, Rev. St. 1899 [Ann. St. 1906, p. 1276], of defiling his ward. At the September term, 1905, of the circuit court of Henry county, the grand jury returned an indictment against the defendant, embracing in such indictment three counts. The first count charged him under the provisions of the statute with having carnal knowledge of Opal Knaus, an unmarried female between the ages of 14 and 18 years, of previously chaste character. The second count charged the defendant with having carnal knowledge of Opal Knaus, a female under the age of 18 years, who was then and there confided to his care and protection. The third count charged the defendant with taking one Opal Knaus, a female under the age of 18 years, from her mother for the purpose of concubinage. On December 19, 1905, being at an adjourned term of the Henry county circuit court, the defendant was tried by a jury. On the 20th of December, 1905, during such trial, the prosecuting attorney dismissed the third count of said indictment. At such trial defendant was found guilty of the offense charged in the second count and was acquitted of the charge contained in the first count. Upon motion, and at the request of the defendant, a new trial was granted him, and he was again tried upon the charge embraced in the second count at the January term, 1906. It is this trial that is now before us for review. Before the trial proceeded the defendant withdrew his plea of not guilty, and filed his plea in bar of this prosecution. We deem it unnecessary to reproduce in full the allegations contained in this plea. It is sufficient to state that it is predicated upon the acquittal of the defendant of the charge in the first count. It fully and correctly sets forth the pleadings and record in connection with the trial in which a verdict of not guilty as to the first count was returned, and makes allegation that the offense as charged in the second count grew out of the same transaction as that contained in the first count, of which defendant had been acquitted; that the defendant is the same person who was tried and that the evidence offered, wherein the defendant was acquitted, was to the effect that Opal Knaus was 15 years old, and that she was a pupil of defendant, who was then a school teacher, and that, while said relations existed, he carnally knew her and had intercourse with her; that prior thereto she was of previous chaste character, and that the proof then made will be the same proof in this trial and none other; that this defendant stands ready to verify and prove all the facts and things alleged in his plea in bar. Then follows the prayer of the defendant, in which he says that by reason of the terms and facts, as stated in his plea in bar, he stands fully acquitted of the alleged crimes, offenses, or felonies charged in the first count, and he asks that he be permitted to prove and verify the same, and that he have a trial thereof, to the end that he may be discharged from a further trial of the second count herein or any other count in said indictment. To this plea in bar the state first filed an answer, which upon motion of the defendant was stricken out. The state thereupon filed a demurrer to defendant's plea, which, over the objections and exceptions of defendant, was sustained. Defendant thereupon refused to plead further, and the court ordered entered of record a plea of not guilty, and the trial proceeded. At said trial the state's evidence substantially tended to show that the defendant was a school teacher by occupation, and that he taught one term and was principal of school in Urich, Henry county, Mo. Prosecutrix lived with her widowed mother in the town of Urich, and attended the school which defendant taught. This term of school opened in September, 1904, and continued till the following May, when defendant taught a summer school. Shortly after the opening of school defendant began paying attentions to prosecutrix, who was then nearly 15 years of age. Defendant would hand love verses to prosecutrix, read them to her, and say that they applied to "our case." Defendant was a married man, but was not then living with his wife. When prosecutrix would go up with her class to recite, defendant would always borrow her book, and, in returning it, would press her hands close and fondle with them. Prosecutrix and defendant were together often during recess and noon hour, and defendant often talked to her on religious subjects. In January prosecutrix told defendant that they must stop being together so much, and he must stop paying her so much attention, as persons were beginning to talk about them. Defendant said nothing at that time, but late that afternoon defendant handed prosecutrix her book and indicated to her that there was a note in it for her. In this note defendant asked permission of prosecutrix to meet her at 11 o'clock that evening, and prosecutrix answered, saying for him to come to a certain door of her house. Defendant came, told her how much he cared for her and loved her, that his life would always be miserable unless she permitted him to go ahead with his attentions, that both of them were Christians, and that it was her Christian duty to permit him to visit her. No one was at home this night except prosecutrix and her grandmother; her mother having gone to a neighboring town. As the grandmother had gone to bed, no one knew of this visit to prosecutrix. Defendant further told prosecutrix that his wife cared nothing for him, that he cared nothing for her, as she was not a Christian woman, and was only a drawback to him. He further professed love for prosecutrix, and said that he needed her to help him in his Christian life, and that he believed that he could help her a great deal. At the close of this visit defendant asked prosecutrix if he could call again, and she consented that he might. Defendant called the next night, met prosecutrix, caressed her, and took improper liberties with her person. Defendant made a third visit the next night (her mother still being away) and this time had sexual intercourse with prosecutrix. Defendant and prosecutrix had various meetings after that, one on returning from prayer meeting, others out in the yard, and still others in the kitchen. At these various meetings defendant and prosecutrix had sexual intercourse; defendant talking to her continually about being in love with her, considering her his wife, and that there was...