State v. Teeter

Decision Date06 February 1912
PartiesSTATE v. TEETER.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

Appeal from Circuit Court, Grundy County; Geo. W. Wanamaker, Judge.

Claude Teeter was convicted of seduction under promise of marriage, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Defendant was convicted on a charge of seducing and debauching under promise of marriage one Ruth Bosley, an unmarried female. From a judgment fixing his punishment at three years in the penitentiary, he appeals.

The information contained two counts. In one defendant is charged with seducing prosecutrix under promise of marriage, and in the other with having unlawful carnal knowledge of said prosecutrix. According to the evidence of prosecutrix, her entire courtship with defendant was conducted at the home of her aunt, Mrs. Sarah Call, who resided a few miles from the home of prosecutrix. She testified that on February 28, 1909, during his second visit to her, defendant proposed marriage; that she accepted, and an hour or so later he seduced her under said promise. He continued his visits for about four weeks, when, upon learning that she was pregnant, his visits ceased. A child was born to her in December, 1909, which she says was the product of her intercourse with defendant. There was substantial evidence tending to prove that prosecutrix was under 18 years of age and of good repute when the alleged seduction took place; and there was also substantial evidence indicating that she was unchaste before defendant began keeping company with her. Defendant was sworn as a witness in his own behalf, and in rebuttal the state introduced evidence tending to prove that his reputation for morality was bad. Such additional evidence relating to the alleged promise of marriage as will be necessary for a full understanding of the case will be noted in our opinion.

Defendant seeks a reversal of the judgment on the following grounds: (1) Because the court erred in overruling defendant's motion to quash the information, on the ground that it contained a misjoinder of causes of action. (2) Alleged erroneous instructions on the part of the state. (3) Improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney. (4) Improper remarks of the court to defendant's attorneys. (5) Failure of the court to instruct the jury upon all the issues of law of the case. (6) That the verdict of the jury is not founded upon the evidence and the law of the case, but was rendered by reason of the passion, prejudice, and sympathy of the jury.

Hewitt & Hewitt, for appellant. Elliott W. Major, Atty. Gen., and Campbell Cummings, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BROWN, J. (after stating the facts as above).

1. The court did not err in refusing to quash the information on account of the alleged misjoinder, for the reason that before the court passed on the motion to quash the state abandoned the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge and elected to go to trial only on the charge of seduction. The defendant was not prejudiced by the existence in the information of a count which had been abandoned, and upon which he was not tried. His conviction of seduction is equivalent to an acquittal of the charge of unlawful carnal knowledge.

2. Numerous alleged remarks of the prosecuting attorney are complained of; one of them being that in his opening statement to the jury he said of the prosecutrix: "She was seduced on February 28, 1909; on December 8, 1909, the child was born." We fail to see the impropriety of this remark. It merely referred to certain facts which the state expected to prove, and which it did attempt to prove. The very object of the prosecuting attorney's opening statement was to call the attention of the jury to the facts which the state expected to prove, and upon which it relied for a conviction.

3. Several other alleged improper remarks of the prosecuting attorney are noted in defendant's motion for a new trial and urged here; but, as said last-mentioned remarks are not embraced in the bill of exceptions, we cannot pass upon them. The motion for a new trial does not prove its own allegations, and when it refers to matters which transpired and were known to defendant before the case was finally submitted to the jury such matters must be incorporated in the bill of exceptions. State v. Steen, 115 Mo., loc. cit. 477, 22 S. W. 461; State v. James, 194 Mo., loc. cit. 279, 92 S. W. 679, 5 Ann. Cas. 1007.

4. It is also alleged that the court prejudiced the minds of the jury against the defendant by addressing his counsel in such language as to indicate that he considered them only competent to practice before justices of the peace. But we are not cited to any case holding that remarks of a scolding nature by a court to attorneys are grounds for reversal. State v. Nelson, 181 Mo. 341, 80 S. W. 947, 103 Am. St. Rep. 602, and other cases cited and relied on by defendant, are not in point, because they refer only to improper oral instructions and remarks made by courts directly to juries concerning their duties. It is highly improper for a court to allow a jury to find out on which side of a case its sympathies fall, or that it is personally unfriendly to a litigant or his attorneys, as such conduct might tend to prevent the jury from performing their duties in an impartial manner. Courts should treat all attorneys who have the right to appear before them with courtesy and respect, so long as such attorneys be guilty of no contempt or misconduct. However, we do not believe the mere action of the court in criticising the defendant's attorneys during the progress of the trial would alone be cause for overturning the verdict, as its remarks did not indicate how it thought the case ought to be decided.

5. Defendant also assails the instructions given on the part of the state; but we find that these instructions, when read with the instructions given at the request of the defendant, correctly define the crime for which defendant was on trial.

6. Defendant also complains that the court omitted to instruct on certain issues of law arising in the case; but, as we have decided to reverse the judgment, if any instructions...

To continue reading

Request your trial
73 cases
  • State v. White
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • 18 Abril 1958
    ... ... State v. Stillman, Mo., 310 S.W.2d 886; State v. Thursby, Mo., 245 S.W.2d 859, 863(8, 9); State v. Teeter, 239 Mo. 475, 144 S.W. 445, 447(4). The remark in the instant case, coming near the end of a trial in which the court had displayed remarkable judicial patience and tolerance, did no more than manifest his desire to hear the case expeditiously [State v. Fletcher, Mo., 190 S.W. 317, 323(21)]; and, ... ...
  • State v. Spinks, 36208.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Febrero 1939
    ... ... (2d) 638, 324 Mo. 78; State v. Jones, 268 S.W. 87, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Shobe, 268 S.W. 82, 306 Mo. 437; State v. Hillebrand, 225 S.W. 1008, 285 Mo. 290; State v. Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Wellman, 161 S.W. 799, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Smith, 157 S.W. 307, 250 Mo. 274; State v. Teeter, 144 S.W. 447, 239 Mo. 475; State v. Horton, 153 S.W. 1057, 247 Mo. 657; State v. Beckner, 91 S.W. 892, 194 Mo. 281; State v. Jackson, 8 S.W. 760, 95 Mo. 623; Wharton's Criminal Evidence (10 Ed.), secs. 24, 32, 42, 52, pp. 44, 119, 186, 217; 16 C.J., secs. 1132, 1133, p. 586. (3) The court erred in ... ...
  • State v. Spinks
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 21 Febrero 1939
    ... ... Jones, 268 S.W. 87, 306 Mo. 437; State ... v. Shobe, 268 S.W. 82, 306 Mo. 437; State v ... Hillebrand, 225 S.W. 1008, 285 Mo. 290; State v ... Edmundson, 218 S.W. 864; State v. Wellman, 161 ... S.W. 799, 253 Mo. 302; State v. Smith, 157 S.W. 307, ... 250 Mo. 274; State v. Teeter, 144 S.W. 447, 239 Mo ... 475; State v. Horton, 153 S.W. 1057, 247 Mo. 657; ... State v. Beckner, 91 S.W. 892, 194 Mo. 281; ... State v. Jackson, 8 S.W. 760, 95 Mo. 623; ... Wharton's Criminal Evidence (10 Ed.), secs. 24, 32, 42, ... 52, pp. 44, 119, 186, 217; 16 C. J., secs. 1132, ... ...
  • State v. Wood
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • 10 Febrero 1947
    ... ... 429, 142 S.W. 263; ... State v. Miller, 263 Mo. 326, 172 S.W. 385; ... State v. Caldwell, 311 Mo. 534, 278 S.W. 700. (2) ... The state should not have been permitted to introduce ... incompetent and irrelevant matters in evidence, prejudicial ... to the rights of appellant. State v. Teeter, 239 Mo ... 475, 144 S.W. l.c. 448; Constitution of Missouri, Sec. 18 (a) ... Art. 1; State v. Phillips, 233 Mo. 229, 135 S.W. 4 ... (3) "It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney to be ... fair and impartial in presenting the evidence for the ... prosecution". 16 C.J. 891, sec. 2228; 16 ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT