State v. Williams

• Decision Date: 09 May 1899
• Citation: 51 S.W. 88,149 Mo. 496
• Parties: STATE v. WILLIAMS.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

51 S.W. 88

149 Mo. 496

STATE v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

May 9, 1899.

RAPE — IMBECILES — CRIMINAL LAW — SEPARATION OF JURY — NEW TRIAL.

1. Sexual intercourse with a female of such weak mind that she cannot comprehend the nature and consequence of the act, or distinguish right from wrong, is by force, within Rev. St. 1889, § 3480, so as to constitute rape.

2. The separation of one of the jury before the introduction of any evidence, where the state affirmatively shows that such juror was not subject to improper influences while separated, is not a ground for a new trial.

Appeal from circuit court, Texas county; L. B. Woodside, Judge.

William Williams was convicted of rape, and he appeals. Affirmed.

Robert Shuck and W. H. Dodson, for appellant. Edward C. Crow, Atty. Gen., and Sam B. Jeffries, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

BURGESS, J.

Defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Texas county on the 23d day of November, 1898, of the crime of rape, and his punishment fixed at five years' imprisonment in the penitentiary. He appeals.

Eliza Buckner, an imbecile female, was raised in Texas county, and lived with her parents all of her life. She was about 34 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense with which defendant stands charged. She did not know right from wrong; could not learn her letters or count; nor could she tell the hour of the day by the clock, nor the number of days in a week or month. She could do nothing, unless told, and then, as a rule, had to be shown. She was at times sent to a spring about 150 yards from the family dwelling, for water. Some time in the month of October, 1897, while she was at the spring, defendant went to her, and, while in conversation with her, took advantage of her feeble mind by having intercourse with her. This he admitted to others to have done on several occasions. As a result of this intercourse she became pregnant, and in due course of time was confined, and gave birth to a child, which was dead when delivered. Defendant was well acquainted with Eliza Buckner, and knew her to be an imbecile. At the close of the evidence on the part of the state, defendant interposed a demurrer to the evidence, which was overruled, and he saved his exceptions.

At the close of all the evidence, the court, over the objection of defendant, instructed the jury as follows: "(1) The court instructs the jury that if you believe and find from the evidence that the defendant, at and in the county of Texas and state of Missouri, at any time before the finding of this indictment, did willfully and feloniously have sexual intercourse with one Eliza Buckner; and if you further believe and find from the evidence that at the time of such intercourse, if you believe it was had, the said Eliza Buckner was a person of unsound mind, and of such weak intellect and intelligence that she could not and did not know or comprehend the nature and consequence of such an act, and could not understand right from wrong, — you will find the defendant guilty of rape, and assess his punishment at death or imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term not less than five years. (2) `Willfully,' as used in these instructions, means intentionally. The term `feloniously' means wickedly and against the admonition of the law; that is, wickedly and unlawfully. (3) The court instructs the jury that the defendant is a competent witness in his own behalf, and his testimony should be considered by you in making up your verdict; but, in determining what weight you will give to his testimony, you may consider the fact that he is the defendant and on trial." At the request of defendant the following instructions were given: "(1) In order to convict in this case, it devolves upon the state to show and prove that the defendant, at some time, in Texas county, Missouri, had sexual intercourse with Eliza Buckner, and that she at such time was a person of such weak and disordered mind that she could not comprehend or understand the nature and consequence of such an act, and did not at such time know right from wrong; and, unless the state has so shown, you will find the defendant not guilty. (2) The defendant is presumed to be innocent, and this presumption remains with him until the state, by evidence, establishes his guilt to your satisfaction, and beyond a reasonable doubt. If, therefore, upon a consideration of all the evidence...