State v. Shobe
| Decision Date | 31 December 1924 |
| Docket Number | 25656 |
| Citation | 268 S.W. 81 |
| Parties | STATE v. SHOBE |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
L. A Martin, of Chillicothe, for appellant.
Jesse W. Barrett, Atty. Gen., and Harry L. Thomas, Sp. Asst. Atty Gen., for the State.
WALKER, J., absent.
The appellant was found guilty by a jury in the circuit court of Livingston county of statutory rape, in violation of section 3247, R. S. 1919, as amended by the act of 1921 (Acts of 1921, p. 284a). The information, signed by Nolan N. Chapman prosecuting attorney, charged that on the 3d day of March, 1923, in said county, the act was committed upon Liddie O'Brien, a female child under the age of 16 years.
The evidence showed that Liddie O'Brien, who was married, and her husband arrived in Chillicothe at 10 a. m., March 3, 1924. They came from Gallatin, and had recently come from Oklahoma. Soon after their arrival her husband had conferences with several men, including the appellant. During the day and the following night several men visited her for immoral purposes at a room over Charlie Wilson's store, a building near the depot. Charlie Wilson was a negro. She, herself, testified that she received no fewer than nine men, among them negroes and the appellant. The next morning she and her husband appeared at the police station and informed against the defendant, the defense claims because she failed to get money which was promised her.
It was stated in the oral argument that the woman's husband had been given a long term in the penitentiary for his connection with the matter, and that other men who visited her that night had been tried and some of them found guilty.
The appellant offered evidence to show that he had served in the army in France, had received shell shock, was gassed, and at the time of the alleged offense was irresponsible and in fact insane. The state offered evidence to show that he was of bad moral character. On this evidence the jury found the defendant guilty, and assessed his punishment at 20 years in the state penitentiary.
I. The evidence as to Liddie's age was far from cogent or clear. No record was introduced or referred to showing when she was born. She swore she was born in Mumford, in Greene county; her parents afterwards moved to Springfield, a circumstance she remembered though she was only two years old at the time. Later the family moved to Oklahoma. She claimed she was not quite 16 at the time of the occurrence mentioned. She had been married a few months before and was pregnant at the time of her marriage. Her brother testified she was born April 5, 1907, and therefore she would be 16 April 5th, following the alleged offense. All she knew about her age was what her mother had told her. Her brother, who was 23 years old, was unable to give the date of the birth of any other of his brothers or sisters, though there were eight children in all. This evidence was sufficient to justify a finding that she was under the age of 16 years.
II. It is contended by the appellant that the offense charged does not apply to a married woman. Section 3247, R. S. 1919, Laws 1921, p. 284a, § 1, makes it a criminal offense to carnally know 'any female child under the age of 16 years.' Of course 'any female' child would include a married girl. This conclusion is re-enforced by the following section (3248, as amended by Laws 1921, p. 284a § 1), which makes it an offense to carnally know an unmarried female, of previous chaste character, between the ages of 16 and 18 years. All this shows the intention of the Legislature to fix the crime described in section 3247, so that it would be applied to an attack upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial