State v. Patrick

• Decision Date: 27 January 1891
• Citation: 15 S.W. 290
• Parties: STATE v. PATRICK.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

15 S.W. 290

STATE v. PATRICK.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 27, 1891.

RAPE — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE.

1. The prosecutrix testified that the accused had twice tried to ravish her. The second time she told her husband, and the accused was arrested. She refused to appear against him, and testified that, while he was going home after his discharge, he met her in a field and ravished her. For the purpose of showing how she came to be at such place, she was permitted to testify in chief that, while the accused was in jail for the assault, his sister-in-law and two of his brothers told her that her husband was trying to get a divorce, and would put her in jail, and persuaded her to leave him, and that the two brothers offered her money to go to her uncle's, in another county. There was no evidence to connect the accused with these conversations, and the character of the prosecutrix had not then been attacked. Held, that the conversations were not admissible.

2. The prosecutrix claimed to have been ravished 200 yards from the house of a brother of the accused, and the brother's wife had just left her to go to the house. When she saw the accused she did not try to avoid him, and made no outcry. She showed no evidence of the outrage when, a few moments later, she appeared at the house. A short time afterwards her brother came to the house looking for her. She talked to him alone, but made no complaint. He offered to take her to her uncle's, and she told him that the accused had agreed to take her, and when he came for her that night she hid from him, and remained in the woods that night and the next day with the accused and his brother. The next night the accused took her, at her request, to her uncle's, some 40 miles distant. When they arrived, dinner was prepared for both, and they seemed to be in the best of humor. About a week afterwards two of her neighbors appeared, and inquired as to her treatment by the accused. At first she denied any wrong on his part, but by urging her, and stating that they knew all about it, they induced her to make a charge of rape. Held, that it was error to refuse to instruct that the charge of rape was not corroborated, and, if the prosecutrix continued friendly intercourse with the accused, "then the law presumes such intercourse inconsistent with defendant's guilt, and renders her charge of rape improbable," and that from the delay in making complaint "the law presumes such concealment inconsistent with defendant's guilt."

THOMAS, J., dissenting.

Appeal from St. Louis criminal court; BENJAMIN E. TURNER, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of rape in the circuit court of Lewis county, at the adjourned September term, 1889. The record discloses the following facts: The prosecuting witness, Mrs. Annie K. Botts, was the wife of William Botts. She was 15 years old on the 7th of May, 1889. Was married August 1, 1888, and in July, 1889, was living on a rented farm near the village of Deer Ridge, in Lewis county. The defendant was a young man living with his widowed mother and a brother, on his mother's farm, in the same neighborhood. According to the evidence of the prosecutrix, the defendant came to her residence in July, in the absence of her husband, and made overtures, which she declined. She did not inform her husband of his conduct. In a few days he called again, in the absence of her husband, and she, suspecting the object of his call, said, "I am going down to Aunt Martha's," who lived close by. She started, and he followed. He caught her about half-way between her home and her mother's house. She says he tripped her, and threw her backwards; but she told him she heard some one coming, and he let her loose. She then escaped by running. She still did not inform her husband. Soon after this, on Monday, the 15th July, he again appeared at her residence, and found her washing. She says: "He grabbed me around the arms, and kept trying. I got the broomstick, and hit him over the head. He threw me on the bed. We had two or three wrestles, and at last he saw his brother coming, and stopped." She told her husband about it that night as quick as he got home. Her husband left next morning for Monticello, the county-seat, and did not return until Friday. The prosecuting attorney began a prosecution for the assault, and defendant was arrested July 19th, and taken to Monticello. On Saturday, the prosecutrix having declined to appear, the case was dismissed. Upon being released, the defendant started for his home, and came through the village of Deer Ridge. He walked, and came to his brother Dug Patrick's, on a neighborhood path, through the fields. The prosecuting witness was out gathering blackberries that afternoon with Mrs. Millie Patrick, the wife of Douglas Patrick. If she is to be credited, the defendant, when about 200 yards from his brother Dug's house, saw her near this path, leading from Deer Ridge, and accosted her. Mrs. Millie Patrick had left her. She says he came up to her. Told her that the prosecution for the assault had cost him $55.40, and that he intended to have the worth of his money. He thereupon seized her, carried her some 40 or 50 feet over or through a gap in a rail fence into the brush, and, to use her language, "raped her." He left her, and was seen coming down the path by his brother and other witnesses. The evidence is undisputed that within a short time she was again at Dug Patrick's house. That her brother, Ben Coons, a young man, and Frank Botts, her brother-in-law, came to Dug's looking for her. There is no claim made by the state that she made known to any of Dug Patrick's family that she had been outraged. She met her brother. Talked with him by himself, and yet she did not intimate to him that this foulest of crimes had been perpetrated on her by the defendant. On Friday night, before the preliminary trial and alleged rape on Saturday, the prosecutrix, by an arrangement with one Tom Patrick, a brother of defendant, left her aunt's house, in the absence of her husband. She says she did this because Millie, Tom, and James Patrick all told her that Bill, her husband, had gone to Monticello to obtain a divorce from her, and if she appeared against the defendant he would put her in the penitentiary. She thereupon determined to go to her Uncle George Coons', who lived in Shelby county. She left her aunt's alone. Found Tom. He was horseback, and she mounted behind him. According to her story, they rode till daybreak, and at that hour found themselves at Dug Patrick's, four or five miles from the point of starting. Tom says they reached Dug's about midnight. Dug and wife were absent at his mother's, and they took possession, and remained till breakfast. It seems that her husband was trying to find Annie, and it was on this hunt for her that Frank Botts and Ben Coons found her Saturday afternoon. Ben told her he had come for her, and told her that he would take her to her uncle's, in Shelby county, and promised to return in two hours after dark. He says she then told him they had got her a way to go, and were going to take her. He came after her, but she had left Dug's house to avoid her husband. She remained in the fields with Tom and Charlie Patrick Saturday night. Sunday they took her her food. Sunday night the defendant procured a cart from a neighbor, and took the prosecutrix to her uncle's house, in Shelby county, some 40 miles distant. That she declined the assistance of her own brother for this journey, and sought that of her alleged ravisher, is not debatable. She reached her uncle's house on the afternoon of Monday. She caused her aunt, Mrs. Coons, to invite defendant to dinner. They ate at the same table. After dinner they repaired to the parlor, and indulged in some music. Her demeanor to the defendant was friendly, even confidential. Just as defendant was leaving, her husband appeared on the scene. She upbraided him for cruel treatment, and he threatened to kill himself. Her husband was not a witness in the case, but the evidence discloses that his wife, the prosecutrix, declined to live with him until a few days before the trial in November. When her husband complained of the Patricks taking her away, she vehemently declared that they had never mistreated her. Prosecutrix made no outcry at the time of the alleged rape. Did not discover the crime to Milly Patrick, Tom or James Patrick, on her return to the house from the blackberry patch. When, in a short time, her brother and brother-in-law came after her, although she was left alone with her brother, she did not complain to him. After reaching her aunt's, and the defendant had left her, with her husband and uncle's family, she made no complaint. On the next Saturday, a Mr. Baltzell, who appears to have taken a most active part in righting the wrongs of Mrs. Annie, came to Shelby county to her uncle's, and, by telling her he knew all about Charlie's treatment of her, obtained a statement from her that Charlie, the defendant, had outraged her. She testified on the preliminary trial, but did not charge defendant then with tearing her underclothing. On the last trial she made this charge. The defendant denies the charge of rape. He says that, after he was discharged Saturday, he started for his home. Went by way of Deer Ridge. Remained there about half hour. "I went south-west on the neighborhood path, — and usual path." Got over into his brother's field. Heard some one say, "Hello, Charlie." Looked, and saw the prosecutrix. She started to him, and he went to her. He asked her what she was doing there. She said: "`I have left Bill. Did you get my letter?' I told her I did." She asked if it cost him anything going down there. He answered, it had. She then told him she did not know at the time he was arrested what it was for, and that she wrote the note refusing to appear against him as soon as she learned what it all meant. Said she had a quarrel with her...