State v. Tuttle

Decision Date03 February 1903
Citation66 N.E. 524,67 Ohio St. 440
PartiesSTATE v. TUTTLE.
CourtOhio Supreme Court

Exceptions from court of common pleas, Hamilton county.

Oliver W. Tuttle was indicted for a crime and acquitted, and the state brings exceptions. Sustained.

On the 20th day of April, A. D. 1901, Oliver W. Tuttle was indicted by the grand jury of Hamilton county, under section 6816 Rev. St. Ohio, for carnally knowing and abusing Mabel O'Neal, a female person under the age of 16 years, with her consent. Later in the term of the court, he was placed on trial, and Mable O'Neal and a companion, Bertha Hackett likewise under the age of 16, both colored, were the principal witnesses for the state. The defendant was a white man about 50 years of age.

The exceptions filed in this court by the prosecuting attorney are the following: The court erred (1) in refusing to admit testimony on behalf of the state; (2) in the admission of testimony offered on behalf of the defendant; (3) in the giving of certain special charges offered for the defendant.

The special charges requested and given before argument, and which are most complained of by the state, are:

‘ Charge 1. A female person under sixteen years of age, who knowing it is wrong, consents to an act of sexual intercourse with herself by a man above the age of eighteen years, is an accomplice, and her testimony should be received with caution and very closely scrutinized before the jury acts upon it.

‘ Charge 2. The jury is warned that it is exceedingly unsafe to convict in any case upon the evidence of an accomplice unless the same is corroborated by other evidence which is reliable.

‘ Charge 3. The experience of courts warns them to scan with caution and view with suspicion the testimony of abandoned women, or the like; and, if any such have testified in this cause, it is your duty to apply the above warning.

‘ Charge 4. The conduct of abandoned women is often incomprehensible when tested by the standard applied to the generality of mankind, and, if any such have testified in this case, you should be cautious in relying upon her evidence.’

After hearing the evidence and arguments of counsel, the jury retired to their room, and soon thereafter returned into court a verdict of not guilty. The state has obtained leave to file a bill of exceptions in this court for its judgment on the several decisions excepted to.

Syllabus by the Court

1. On the trial of a male person of the age of 18 years or upwards on an indictment for carnally knowing and abusing a female person under the age of 16 years, with her consent, it is error for the court to charge the jury, that ‘ a female person under sixteen years of age, who, knowing it is wrong consents to an act of sexual intercourse with herself by a man above the age of eighteen years, is an accomplice, and her testimony should be received with caution and very closely scrutinized before the jury acts upon it.’ It is also error for the court to say in that connection, and as a part of the above charge, that ‘ the jury is warned that it is exceedingly unsafe to convict in any case upon the evidence of an accomplice unless the same is corroborated by other evidence which is reliable.’

2. It is likewise error in such case for the court to charge the jury that ‘ the experience of courts warns them to scan with caution and view with suspicion the testimony of abandoned women, and, if any such have testified in this cause, it is your duty to apply the above warning.’

3. It was further error in such case for the court to charge that ‘ the conduct of abandoned women is often incomprehensible when tested by the standard applied to the generality of mankind, and, if any such have testified in this case, you should be cautious in relying upon her evidence.’

4. It is not the province of the court to classify witnesses, and give to the jury what the experience of the courts may be in respect to such a class, but their credibility should be left to the jury, under all the competent facts and circumstances of the case before it.

Hoffheimer, Morris & Sawyer, for the State.

Thomas H. Darby, for defendant.

PRICE, J. (after stating the facts).

We have searched the record in vain for some of the rulings of the court upon the introduction of testimony. Counsel for the state have cited us to certain pages of the record for objections to certain questions, and the rulings of the court thereon, but it appears that the evidence now complained of was permitted by the state without objection, and hence the court made no ruling on the subject. This statement covers the entire assignment as to errors of the trial court in ruling upon the admissibility of testimony, save in one instance, and it relates to an inquiry which we regard as unimportant in the case, and therefore do not further consider it.

Before the arguments of counsel began, the accused requested the two special charges contained in the statement of this case, and they were given, and, no doubt, they contributed largely to the verdict of acquittal. If they correctly state the law...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • State v. Trusty, APPEAL NO: C-120378
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • August 16, 2013
    ...This is not the law. See, e.g., State v. Gingell, 7 Ohio App.3d 364, 365, 455 N.E.2d 1066 (1st Dist.1982), citing State v. Tuttle, 67 Ohio St. 440, 66 N.E. 524 (1903); State v. Banks, 71 Ohio App.3d 214, 220, 593 N.E.2d 346 (3d Dist.1991); In re C.S., 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-667, 2012-......
  • State v. Gingell
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • October 27, 1982
    ...or otherwise, that a rape victim's testimony be corroborated as a condition precedent to conviction. See, e.g., State v. Tuttle (1903), 67 Ohio St. 440, 66 N.E. 524; Butler v. State (App.1926), 4 Ohio Law Abs. 236; State v. Moore (C.P.1956), Ohio Com.Pl., 139 N.E.2d 381, 74 Ohio Law Abs. 11......
  • State v. Blevins
    • United States
    • Ohio Court of Appeals
    • March 3, 1987
    ...that reversal will lie only where the court's conduct was highly prejudicial to one or the other party. See, e.g., State v. Tuttle (1903), 67 Ohio St. 440, 66 N.E. 524 (impeachment by court of a witness); Miller v. Hesseldon (1926), 115 Ohio St. 266, 152 N.E. 666 (digression during jury ins......
  • State v. Carl
    • United States
    • Ohio Supreme Court
    • January 3, 1905
    ...v. State, 45 N. J., 46; Regina v. Day, 9 C. & P., 722; Buchanan v. State, 52 S.W. 769; State v. Mahoney, 61 Pac. Rep., 647; State v. Tuttle, 67 Ohio St. 440; People Verdegreen, 39 Pac. Rep., 607; People v. Roach, 61 Pac. Rep., 574; 129 Cal. 33; State v. Clark, 29 N. J. Law, 96; Tarbox v. St......
  • 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