State v. Pruett

• Decision Date: 17 May 1898
• Citation: 144 Mo. 92,45 S.W. 1114
• Parties: STATE v. PRUETT.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 S.W. 1114

144 Mo. 92

STATE v. PRUETT.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 17, 1898.

INCEST — EVIDENCE.

1. On an indictment for incest, a witness, after stating that on one occasion he saw defendant and his half-sister on a bed, in a position that indicated that they were engaged in sexual intercourse, was permitted to testify, over defendant's objection, that he saw the sister about a month thereafter, and she appeared "in family way." Held error.

2. Questions asked of a witness, as to whether he had not "threatened to kill defendant, or run him off the place," and as to his having "told defendant that he [witness] killed defendant's hogs," are proper, as showing bias and prejudice towards accused.

3. On an indictment for incest, the state was permitted, over defendant's objection, to introduce evidence of acts and words of the parties' father to the effect that on one occasion defendant and his sister were away until after dark, and this "made the old man mad," and, on their coming, he "told them this way of laying out until dark had to be stopped." Held, that such evidence was mere hearsay, and incompetent.

Appeal from circuit court, Pulaski county; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

James Pruett was convicted of incest, and appeals. Reversed.

Jos. J. Crites and E. Y. Mitchell, for appellant, Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam. B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

SHERWOOD, J.

Crime, incest. Indictment, usual form. Venue, Pulaski county. Trial, with evidence pro and con. Punishment, two years in the penitentiary. These are the salient features of this salacious record.

1. Evidence was admitted on behalf of the state showing that in June, 1894, Hugh Crisman saw defendant and his half-sister, Laura Pruett, on a bed in their father's house, and in such a position as indicated that they were indulging in sexual intercourse. After this the witness was allowed to testify, over the objections of defendant, that, subsequent to the time that he saw Laura Pruett on the bed with defendant (that is, along the latter part of June or July), she appeared to be "in the family way." This testimony was erroneously admitted. If, immediately after the parties were seen on the bed together, Laura had been cast into prison, and placed "incommunicado," with a woman for a jailer, the evidence might have possessed somewhat more of probative force against defendant, but in the circumstances stated, none whatever. To admit such testimony aforesaid would be to ignore the various opportunities which might present themselves to others than defendant, even in a remote rural district, for accomplishing such a...