State v. Phillips

• Decision Date: 13 December 1904
• Citation: 83 S.W. 1080,185 Mo. 185
• Parties: STATE v. PHILLIPS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

83 S.W. 1080

185 Mo. 185

STATE v. PHILLIPS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

December 13, 1904.

SEDUCTION — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY — MARRIAGE PROMISE — CORROBORATION OF PROSECUTRIX.

1. On a prosecution for seduction, testimony of a witness that defendant told him that he had promised prosecutrix to marry her was a sufficient corroboration of the marriage promise.

2. On a prosecution for seduction, evidence held sufficient to warrant a finding that defendant seduced prosecutrix under a marriage promise.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Nodaway County; Wm. C. Ellis, Judge.

Charles Phillips was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Saylor & Kirkpatrick and John Dawson, for appellant. E. C. Crow, Atty. Gen., Sam B. Jeffries, and C. D. Corum, for the State.

GANTT, P. J.

This prosecution is by information filed by the prosecuting attorney of Nodaway county on the 1st day of the June term, 1903, of the circuit court of said county, and duly verified. The information charges the seduction of Effie Sloan in said county on or about the 1st day of November, 1903, under a promise of marriage. The defendant was convicted, and sentenced to three years in the penitentiary. The defendant was duly arraigned, and pleaded not guilty. The record proper is without error. While the motion for new trial assigns error in the instructions, the refusal of the instruction in the nature of a demurrer to the evidence alone is urged for reversal in this court. We have, however, examined all the other instructions, and they are such as have often received the approval of this court. The contention is that the evidence discloses no seduction. The facts disclosed in evidence are, substantially: The prosecutrix was a young woman, about 20 years of age. She and the defendant had known each other for 4 or 5 years. Their families had visited each other. They lived at one time within a half mile of each other. The reputation of the prosecutrix as a young woman of good repute for chastity prior to the commission of the offense was shown to be good. The contrary was not attempted to be shown. She was 20 years old at the time of the illicit connection. She testified that, on the evening before her ruin was accomplished, upon defendant's request she took a buggy ride with him. During that time he asked her to have sexual intercourse with him, and she repelled him; telling him she didn't approve of such a thing, and would not do it. Nothing criminal resulted from this proposal, and he drove to her home and left her, but said to her he was coming back the next evening, to which she made no reply. The next evening he came to her father's house. Her sister was working as a domestic about five miles from Elmo, where her parents lived. Another young man came in a buggy to take the sister to her place of work, and the defendant took the prosecutrix in his buggy, and they drove along behind her sister and her companion until they came in sight of her sister's home, and then turned back. During this ride the defendant began again to coax the prosecutrix to have sexual intercourse with him. As on the previous evening, he coaxed and pleaded with her, and promised to marry her, and assured her, if anything happened to her, he would marry her and take her to his brother's home. She testified he told her he would marry her; that she could not repeat all he did say to her, but he made her promises, and was pleading with...