State v. Turner
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina |
| Citation | 64 S.E. 424,82 s. C. 278 |
| Parties | STATE. v. TURNER. |
| Decision Date | 09 April 1909 |
64 S.E. 424
(82 s. C. 278)
STATE.
v.
TURNER.
Supreme Court of South Carolina.
April 9, 1909.
1. Seduction (§ 34*)—Promise of Marriage.
In order to establish seduction, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that prosecutrix was induced to have unlawful sexual intercourse with accused by means of his deception and promise of marriage.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Seduction, Cent. Dig. § 58; Dec. Dig. i 34.*]
2. Seduction (§ 46*) — Prosecution — Evidence—Corroboration.
Under Act Feb. 22, 1905, 24 St. at Large, p. 937, providing that no conviction shall be had for seduction on the uncorroborated evidence of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged, a verdict of acquittal should have been directed, where prosecutrix's evidence was not corroborated.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Seduction, Cent. Dig. §§ 83-86; Dec. Dig. § 46.*]
3. Indictment and Information (§ 109*) — Requisites—Statutory Offenses.
In charging a statutory offense, every essential ingredient of the crime must be alleged.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Indictment and Information, Cent. Dig. § 2S6; Dec. Dig. § 109.*]
4. Seduction (§ 37*)—Indictment—Allegations—Ciiastity.
Under Act Feb. 22, 1905, 24 St. at Large, p. 937, providing that no conviction shall be had for seduction if it is proved that prosecutrix was at the time of the alleged offense lewd and unchaste, her chastity need not be alleged in the indictment; the want of chastity being a matter of defense.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Seduction, Cent. Dig. § 64; Dec. Dig. § 37.*]
Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lexington County.
B. G. Turner was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial.
Nelson & Nelson and Graham & Sturkie, for appellant.
G. B. Timmerman and W. W. Hawes, for the State.
WOODS, J. The defendant, B. G. Turner, was convicted of seduction by the court of general sessions for Lexington county. The appeal to this court involves two inquiries: First. Was there any corroboration of the testimony of the prosecutrix to warrant the submission of the case to the jury? Second. On the charge of seduction is the previous chastity of the prosecutrix a material ingredient of the crime to be established by the state?
The statute under which the defendant was indicted was as follows: "That any male person above the age of sixteen years, who shall, by any means of deception and promise of marriage, seduce any unmarried woman in
[64 S.E. 425]this state, shall, upon conviction, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined or imprisoned at the discretion of the court; but no conviction shall be had under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the woman upon whom the seduction is charged; and no conviction...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Heavener, (No. 12464.)
...and the "presumption of chastity" nullified each other, suffice it to say that, ever since the decision in State v. Turner, 82 S. C. 278, 64 S. E. 424, 17 Ann. Cas. 88, the chastity of the prosecutrix has been presumed in prosecutions for seduction, and, in conformity with the statute, wher......
-
State v. Turner
...64 S.E. 424 82 S.C. 278 STATE v. TURNER. Supreme Court of South CarolinaApril 9, Appeal from General Sessions Circuit Court of Lexington County. B. G. Turner was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Reversed and remanded for new trial. Nelson & Nelson and Graham & Sturkie, for appellant.......
-
Slaughter v. State, (No. 5451.)
...Ann. Cas. 222; Kenyon v. People, 26 N. Y. 203, 84 Am. Dec. 177; State v. Smith, 84 Iowa, 522, 51 N. W. 24; State v. Turner, 82 S. C. 278, 64 S. E. 424, 17 Ann. Cas. 88. In Mills v. Commonwealth, 93 Va. 815, 22 S. E. 863, the holding was that an instruction to the jury to the effect that the......
-
State v. Everall, (No. 11569.)
...necessary to make up the crime must be alleged in the indictment and proved by the prosecution." State v. Turner, 82 S. C. 278, 281, 64 S. E. 424, 425 (17 Ann. Cas. 88). See also, State v. Foster, 3 McCord, 442; State v. O'Bannon, 1 Bailey, 144; State v. Henderson, 1 Rich. 184; State v. Col......