State v. Smith
| Decision Date | 05 February 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 18237.,18237. |
| Parties | STATE v. SMITH |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal from St. Louis Court of Criminal Correction; Calvin N. Miller, Judge.
"Not to be officially published."
William Smith was convicted of failure to provide for an illegitimate child, and he appeals, Reversed, and defendant discharged.
Bishop & Claiborne, of St. Louis, for appellant.
Charles A. Lich and A. L. Schweitzer, both of St. Louis, for the State.
This is a prosecution under the provision of section 3274, Session Acts of 1921, p. 281, for failure on part of the defendant to provide for his illegitimate child under the age of 16 years. The cause was tried to a jury. There was a conviction, and the defendant was sentenced to pay a fine of $1,000. Defendant appeals.
The prosecutrix testified that she was 23 years old at the time of the trial in June, 1922; that she had previously resided at Columbia, a suburb of East St. Louis, Ill., but had been living in St. Louis for five years at the time of the trial; that her occupation was housework; that she had known defendant about three years; that she had sexual intercourse with him on the 27th day of June, 1921, on a Monday night; that this was the only time she had sexual intercourse with defendant; that she did not go out with him after that; that she gave birth to a child on March 12, 1922, at the home of her sister in the city of St. Louis; that the birth of the child was normal and mature; that she had not sustained sexual relations with any other person at any time, but that her child was born of this one sexual act with defendant; that she first met defendant at her cousin's birthday party in 1918; that a month or so after that he took her to a show on Shaw avenue; that after that she sometimes went to his home—went down to see his folks; that he did not go with her regularly; that he never took her anywhere except the one time to the show and walked around the block with her a few times; that he was not a sweetheart of hers and had never courted her; that on the occasion of her sexual intercourse with defendant he took her home that night; that she had previously worked for a saloon keeper at his place of business in a town in Illinois about two years.; that she worked in the home of Con Grable in the city of St. Louis, during the year 1921 until August of that year; that she met Walter Jehling May 19, 1921, but did not go out with him a great deal until August of that year; that he visited her several times in June, and that on one occasion in June she met him at the Eads bridge; that she never asked the defendant to marry her after she became pregnant; that she did not want him to marry her, she only wanted him to support the child; that she never told anybody before the child was born that the defendant was the father of the child, and never mentioned his name in connection with it; that her mother and two sisters were present at the birth of the child.
She further testified that she notified the defendant right away—about three weeks— after her alleged sexual act with him, that she was pregnant; that he gave her a bottle of medicine and told her if that did not help, she should go to a midwife, and that she' thought if he had any sense he would have taken her there himself; that this was the only time prior to the birth of the child that she ever discussed with the defendant the question of her pregnancy.
Prosecutrix's sister testified that she had never heard the prosecutrix accuse defendant of being the father of the child prior to its birth; that after the child was born the prosecutrix "said right away that if Jehling was the father she Would say it because she liked Jehling much better than Bill Smith." The prosecutrix's mother, brother, and two sisters testified that they had never heard the prosecutrix mention the defendant in connection with her pregnancy up to the time of the birth of the child.
Cori Grable testified for the defendant that the prosecutrix worked in his home during the year 1921 until August of that year; that during that time she was keeping company with young men; that he would see young fellows bring her home; that Walter Jehling was coming to see her, and that it was Jehling he heard her talk most about; that he heard her frequently calling him up over the telephone; that she would telephone to meet him at the bridge and other places; that another man, a postman, whose name he did not know, paid ardent court to her; that he would bring her home at 11 o'clock at night; that they would remain downstairs until 2 o'clock before she got upstairs to bed; that he walked down there one night and saw the postman spooning with her and fondling her person.
It was shown that the defendant's general reputation was good for truthfulness, honesty, morality, and habits of industry; that he had the reputation of being a good, industrious, steady boy. The reputation of the prosecutrix for chastity was shown to be bad, and no countervailing evidence was offered in support of her character. It was also shown that she admitted to a girl friend at a summer resort in Michigan, in 1919, that she had been pregnant by a man in Illinois, and that he gave her medicine to take which caused an abortion.
The defendant testified that be did not have sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix at any time during the month of June,. the month of July, or the month of August, 1921, or at any time previous thereto.
Walter Jehling testified for the state in rebuttal that he saw the prosecutrix twice in June; that the first time he came over he met her at the Bads bridge; that he never at any time had intercourse with her, but admitted he had been accused of being the father of her child; that he had company with her from August to December. He denied that he had told the defendant, Anton Brueggemann, and William Leath, that he, had sustained sexual relations with the prosecutrix, but admitted that he went with the defendant shortly before the trial to Columbia, to help defendant find two boys there that were supposed to be the father of the child.
The prosecutrix testified in rebuttal that the testimony of the witness Grabie about seeing her and the postman in a compromising position was not true; that the postman "usually left about 11 o'clock or a quarter after 11 because he had quite a distance to go.."
Anton Brueggemann and William Leath testified in rebuttal for defendant that Walter Jehling...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wood
...testimony as to corpus delicti. State v. Guye, 299 Mo. 348, 252 S.W. l.c. 960; State v. Brown, 209 Mo. 415, 107 S.W. 1068; State v. Smith, 259 S.W. 506; v. Goodale, 210 Mo. 288, 109 S.W. 9; State v. Tevis, 234 Mo. 276, 136 S.W. l.c. 341; State v. McCracken, 162 S.W.2d 853. (8) Corroboration......
-
The State v. Wade
...it should not be permitted to stand. Burkett v. Gerth, 253 S.W. 202; State v. Remley, 237 S.W. 489; State v. Tevis, 234 Mo. 276; State v. Smith, 259 S.W. 506; State Goodale, 210 Mo. 275; State v. Brown, 209 Mo. 413; State v. Wheaton, 221 S.W. 26; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368; State v. Wilson,......
-
State v. Wood
...testimony as to corpus delicti. State v. Guye, 299 Mo. 348, 252 S.W. l.c. 960; State v. Brown, 209 Mo. 415, 107 S.W. 1068; State v. Smith, 259 S.W. 506; State v. Goodale, 210 Mo. 288, 109 S.W. 9; State v. Tevis, 234 Mo. 276, 136 S.W. l.c. 341; State v. McCracken, 162 S.W. (2d) 853. (8) Corr......
-
Lieber v. Heil
...of plaintiff before June 15, 1924, for the reason that said admissions and evidence would tend to impeach plaintiff's credibility. State v. Smith, 259 S.W. 506. (8) was error for the court to allow a child to be introduced in evidence and offered as an exhibit in the case, for the reason th......