State v. Weaver
| Decision Date | 19 November 1924 |
| Docket Number | No. 36018.,36018. |
| Citation | 198 Iowa 1048,200 N.W. 705 |
| Parties | STATE v. WEAVER. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Woodbury County; Miles W. Newby, Judge.
The defendant was convicted of the crime of seduction. From the judgment pronounced on the verdict, he appeals. Affirmed.Yeaman & Yeaman, of Sioux City, for appellant.
Ben J. Gibson, Atty. Gen., Herbert A. Huff, Asst. Atty. Gen., and O. T. Naglestad, Co. Atty., and Ray E. Rieke, Asst. Co. Atty., both of Sioux City, for the State.
But two questions are raised on this appeal. The first, and the one chiefly relied upon by the appellant, is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict of guilty. As presented by counsel for appellant two propositions are involved: (1) Whether there is sufficient evidence of seduction, that is, the use by appellant of seductive arts under the influence of which prosecutrix surrendered her virtue; and (2) whether there is sufficient corroboration of her testimony.
The prosecutrix, Ethel Jackoway, at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, was 16 years old, and resided with her parents, two unmarried sisters. and two younger brothers in the town of Moville. A schoolgirl, Marjorie Williams, boarded with them. The father of the prosecutrix was a laborer. The appellant's father had for some time been living alone in a house next door, and in February, 1922, appellant came from Ohio, where he had been working on a railroad, and joined his father. Appellant was 23 years old. On the Sunday following his arrival he attended church and saw the Jackoway girls and Marjorie Williams in the choir. A few days later one of the sisters of prosecutrix sent him an invitation to attend a Washington Birthday party to be given in the basement of the church. On the next Sunday appellant presented himself at the Jackoway house and introduced himself. From then until his return to Ohio in October he was much at the house and frequently in company with one or more of the girls living there.
[1] It quite clearly appears from all the testimony that the Jackoway girls, Marjorie Williams, and at times other girls, were frequently together and frequently with the appellant and other young men and boys. They attended meetings at the church, moving picture shows, parties in the town and country surrounding, and went automobile riding. The girls met men and boys informally on the street and without introduction, and frequently remained out to a late hour. They played cards at the appellant's home and with his father, and at the home of the married sister of the prosecutrix. Much of what they did was innocent, and but the seeking of youth for entertainment and diversion, and not materially different from the things indulged in by other young people of their age and station. There is evidence of some looseness of morals on the part of some of them, and that the prosecutrix had been indiscreet and much on the street, and some testimony that prior to her alleged seduction she had permitted improper liberties; but her previous chastity was clearly a question for the jury, and it is not seriously insisted that the evidence would not warrant a finding of her previous chaste character.
That appellant took part in many of these activities and was frequently at the Jackoway home and in company with some of the girls living there is not denied. He claims to have been especially attentive to Marjorie Williams; that they were sweethearts and were keeping company, and in this the Williams girl corroborates him. The prosecutrix admitted that he was “going with” Marjorie, but also testified that she frequently went with them to church services and elsewhere, and that he frequently accompanied her alone to the home of a married sister; that she saw him almost every day from the time they met, and that he came to her house almost every day.
She further testified that after she had been going with him for about a month he told her he thought she was an awful nice girl and that he liked her as well as he did any other girl he had ever seen; that he liked a blond girl, and if he ever married a girl he would marry a girl with blue eyes and blond hair, and that he thought she was an awful nice girl; that these remarks were frequently repeated; that she was out with him quite often when she was alone with him; that on April 30th after church she and her sister were riding with another young man, Charlie Roesche, and met the appellant on the street and Roesche asked him to go for a ride; that he got in the car and they drove to a place called Lover's Lane and stopped and talked, all remaining in the car together; that they then drove back to town and stopped the car in an alley near the sidewalk, and that after remaining in the car talking about two minutes the appellant said it was crowded, and suggested that she accompany him to his truck, which was about half way down the alley; that she and the defendant went down to and got into the truck; that the defendant told her how much he thought of her and how well he liked her; that she believed what he said at the time; that he had told her those things a number of times before, and that she had then learned to love him; that he placed his arms about her, repeating how well he loved her and what a nice girl he thought she was; that he then tried to put his hands under her clothes and said there was not any harm in young folks having a good time when they were out together; that he said he knew how to keep from having children; that his mother and father had been married for a long time, and he was the only one they ever had; that he said he knew how, and if he did get her into trouble he would stay by her; that she need not be afraid; that she believed him, and relied on him, and they then had sexual intercourse; and that that was the first time she ever had sexual intercourse with him or any other man.
She further testified that the reason she did so was because he promised to stay by her, and she thought lots of him, and that he said he thought lots of her; that she did not just do it because she wanted to, and that he had asked her several times before this; that he had many times before put his arms around her, at which time he told her how much he thought of her, and that he had tried on three or four previous occasions to put his hand under her dress. Her attention was called on cross-examination to an entry, under date of April 27th, in a diary kept by her which was read into the record as follows: Concerning this she testified: “Well, he asked me if I wouldn't go out some night with him and have a little fun, is what he asked me.” She testified she understood what he meant, and that he was standing with his arms around her and kissed her when he asked her, and that she laughed and told him she would think it over. She explained their being at the barn and going outside by saying that he kept his car in her father's barn and they went for a ride, and that she had received a letter from a cousin with a message for him, and that when she told him she had something to tell him he said to come outside. The prosecutrix testified to subsequent acts of intercourse during the summer and the month of September. It is undisputed that she gave birth to a child on May 28, 1923.
[2][3][4] It is well settled that the exact amount or kind of seductive arts necessary to establish the offense of seduction cannot be defined. “Every case must depend upon its own peculiar circumstances, together with the condition in life, advantages, age, and intelligence of the parties.” State v. Higdon, 32 Iowa, 262;State v. Hughes, 106 Iowa, 125, 76 N. W. 520, 68 Am. St. Rep. 288;State v. Rolling, 190 Iowa, 1139, 181 N. W. 489; The crime may be committed by the use of seductive and deceptive artifices in the absence of a promise of marriage. State v. Hayes, 105 Iowa, 82, 74 N. W. 757;State v. Hamann, 109 Iowa, 646, 80 N. W. 1064;State v. Hemm, 82 Iowa, 609, 48 N. W. 971. A promise to marry the prosecutrix, conditioned upon her becoming pregnant, in connection with the use of flattery and protestations of affection, may constitute seduction. State v. Epps (Iowa) 197 N. W. 924;State v. Price, 157 Iowa, 412, 138 N. W. 520; State v. Hughes, supra.
Here the...
To continue reading
Request your trial