State v. Ripey

• Decision Date: 30 June 1910
• Citation: 129 S.W. 646,229 Mo. 657
• Parties: STATE v. RIPEY.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

129 S.W. 646

229 Mo. 657

STATE v. RIPEY.

Supreme Court of Missouri. Division No. 2.

June 30, 1910.

1. RAPE (§ 57)—EVIDENCE—SUFFICIENCY.

On a prosecution for rape, the question of defendant's guilt held one for the jury.

2. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1159)—QUESTIONS FOR JURY.

Any conflict in the testimony of the witnesses, or discrepancies or inconsistencies in the statements made by any of the witnesses for the state, was a matter exclusively for the jury.

3. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 539)—EVIDENCE.

Answers of the prosecutrix given on the preliminary trial were only competent to show that she had made statements different from the ones made by her on the trial.

4. WITNESSES (§ 388)—IMPEACHMENT.

It was proper to exclude the transcript of prosecutrix's testimony on the preliminary trial where it was not called to her attention.

5. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1144) — APPEAL — PRESUMPTIONS.

Where excluded evidence is not in the record, it will be presumed that it was properly excluded.

6. CRIMINAL LAW (§ 1159)—APPEAL AND ERROR—QUESTIONS OF FACT.

A conviction supported by substantial evidence and approved by the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal.

Appeal from Criminal Court, Jackson County; Ralph S. Latshaw, Judge.

Clarence Ripey was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

This is an appeal from a judgment rendered by the criminal court of Jackson county, Mo., convicting defendant of the crime of rape. The prosecuting attorney of Jackson county filed in the criminal court of said county an information charging the defendant with feloniously, forcibly, and unlawfully ravishing Mrs. Lulu Jones, between 2 and 3 o'clock on Sunday morning, August 30, 1908, in Kansas City, Mo. The sufficiency of the information not being challenged, there is no necessity for reproducing it here. The defendant was duly arraigned, as disclosed by the record, and entered his plea of not guilty.

Upon the trial of said cause the testimony tended to prove substantially the following state of facts: Upon the part of the state testimony was introduced showing that Mrs. Jones, the prosecutrix, at the date of the alleged crime, was a married woman whose home was in Chicago. She had an aunt by the name of Mrs. Richards, who then lived at No. 1212 Independence avenue, Kansas City, Mo. The record discloses that the prosecutrix, Mrs. Jones, her son, who was only 2½ years old, and her mother had been to Scammon, Kan., to attend the funeral of her grandfather, who had been taken there for interment from Chicago. On their return trip home they stopped at Kansas City, Mo., to visit Mrs. Richards. Mrs. Jones was unacquainted with the streets and directions of Kansas City, Mo., not having lived there since she was a small girl. She had been visiting her aunt, Mrs. Richards, on this occasion for about a week prior to the time of the alleged commission of the offense. On Saturday night prior to the Sunday morning, the time as designated by the prosecutrix that the offense was committed, Mrs. Jones and her cousin, a Miss Catherine Richards, and two gentlemen, a Mr. Smith and a Mr. Thomas, whom they met by appointment, went to Fairmont park, and spent the evening seeing the various park amusements, returned on the 11 o'clock car and went to McClintock's Café at Eighth and Walnut streets, for lunch. After the lunch was finished, they, in company with the two men, went to Seventh and Grand to take a car for the Richards home, but reached there just after the 2 o'clock "owl car" had gone, and rather than wait an hour for another the four started to walk to the Richards home at No. 1212 Independence avenue. Miss Richards and the prosecutrix, Mrs. Jones, dismissed the gentlemen escorts on reaching the corner of Independence and Lydia avenues. The men went back south on Lydia avenue; the reason assigned by the two ladies for dismissing their gentlemen escorts was that the place where the Richards lived was located in an undesirable residence portion of the city, and they did not want it known that they lived at No. 1212 Independence avenue. By an examination of the entire record it seems that the Richards family had only recently moved to 1212 Independence avenue. The two ladies, Mrs. Jones and Miss Richards, after separating and leaving their escorts, went across the street, passed around a large house and went through an alley on their way, supposedly, to the Richards home, which was one block to the west. At this point on their trip the record discloses that they became confused, and lost their course, and traveled a number of blocks out of their way. While in this confused condition, and practically lost, they discovered that a man was following them. They testified that at times this man could be seen slipping and moving very quietly upon them. Both of these lady witnesses testified that this frightened them, and at times they would run. In this lost and confused condition they came to where the street runs into a bluff. Confronted by this condition they were compelled to turn and then met the defendant in this cause face to face under a large arc light. Being confused and frightened they inquired of the defendant the way to Independence avenue. He answered them by saying that he would show them if they would follow him. The testimony of these lady witnesses then discloses that the defendant led them down into a deep and dark ravine, saying that he was leading them back to Independence avenue. In crossing the ditch in the ravine, the testimony tends to show that the defendant and Miss Richards both fell; that Miss Richards jumped up and ran, climbing the hill to where she saw a light, and as the prosecutrix, Mrs. Jones, attempted to jump across the ditch she was caught around her neck by the defendant and thrown to the ground. She testified that she screamed, but that the defendant threatened her with personal violence and forced her to submit to his desires, and then and there ravished her. Miss Richards testifies that she ran up the hill and tried to give an alarm at the first house, but being unable she went to the second house, and finally aroused the people in the house, and told of the assault on the prosecutrix in the deep ravine below the house. The police were immediately notified, and after some 15 minutes or more from the time of the assault upon Mrs. Jones, Miss Richards, in company with others, started to the ravine where the prosecutrix was last seen. They found Mrs. Jones coming from the ravine, crying and greatly excited. Her dress and underskirts were badly torn; her hat was on the back of her head, muddy and somewhat crushed. There were indications of mud on her back, and the testimony discloses that she complained of her throat for some days afterward. After this occurrence she seemed to be very much excited and disturbed, and became so immediately after the occurrence, and remained in that condition until after she was taken to the Richards home in an ambulance, sent by the police. Mrs. Jones, the prosecutrix, at the time of the alleged commission of the offense charged against the defendant, was passing through her monthly menstrual period. There was also testimony tending to show that on the front or lower part of the shirt that appellant was wearing on the morning of his arrest was found a large fresh stained blood splotch. Both the prosecutrix, Mrs. Jones, and Miss Richards positively identified the defendant as the man whom they met under the arc light, and who committed the offense as charged in the information.

The testimony on the part of the appellant tends to show that defendant was about 20 years old, and that he was engaged as a teamster for a Mr. Scrivener, who had a livery barn at the corner of Independence and Lydia avenues. There was also testimony introduced tending to show that the defendant was a truthful and law-abiding citizen. The defendant testified...