State v. Williams
Decision Date | 03 December 1923 |
Docket Number | No. 5221.,5221. |
Citation | 196 N.W. 291,47 S.D. 68 |
Parties | STATE v. WILLIAMS. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Roberts County; B. A. Walton, Judge.
Smiley Williams was convicted of rape, and appeals.Affirmed.Babcock & Babcock, of Sisseton, for appellant.
Buell F. Jones, Atty. Gen., and Benj.D. Mintener, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.
Defendant was convicted of statutory rape, alleged to have been committed upon one Hazel Quarten.Motion for new trial was denied, and defendant appeals from the judgment and order.
Prosecutrix, Hazel Quarten, was at the time of the alleged rape 14 years old.Defendant is married to an order sister of Hazel.Both are daughters of George Quarten.Defendant and wife have a home near Sisseton Agency, this state.Quarten lives a few miles distant.In fall of 1921defendant was helping his father–in–law with his farm work.Defendant's wife and child were with him at the Quarten home during this time, and defendant and wife slept together in a room in the Quarten house.The information charges the commission of the crime on December 10, 1921, in Roberts county, this state.On the trial the state contended that the crime was committed at the Quarten home in December, 1921, about the time as charged in the information; that defendant came to prosecutrix's room and got into bed with her, and that defendant's wife, a sister of prosecutrix, came into the room and found defendant in bed with prosecutrix.This is denied by defendant, and also by defendant's wife, who testified that the only time she saw her husband in prosecutrix's room was when she and her husband went into the room together one evening to find some clothes for their baby.It is claimed by prosecutrix's father and mother that they were at the Quarten home all the time, and that if defendant had been guilty of the alleged crime some of them must have known it.Prosecutrix and one Lorna Swayze testified that they saw defendant and Henry St. Clair in her father's pasture some time prior to the occurrence of the sexual intercourse in the Quarten home, and that she, prosecutrix, and defendant separated from St. Clair and the Swayze girl and went behind a hill, stayed there about half an hour, and had sexual intercourse.
[1] It is contended by defendant that the pasture in question was not shown to be within Roberts county.The evidence, however, does show that the father's house was in Roberts county; that the pasture was about a mile from the father's house.It is further contended by the defendant that there was no showing that the intercourses, or either of them, took place within Roberts county.This we believe to be without foundation.Prosecutrix testified:
[2][3] By assignment 1 defendant predicates error on asking the question and the answer made by Stella Richardson as follows:
...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
State v. Fulks, 10462
...be corroborated by other evidence. State v. Rash, 27 S.D. 185, 130 N.W. 91; State v. Dachtler, 43 S.D. 407, 179 N.W. 653; State v. Williams, 47 S.D. 68, 196 N.W. 291; Annot., 60 A.L.R. 1124. In discussing this subject in State v. Dachtler the court expressed its 'full agreement with what we......
-
State v. Johnson, 10153
...propounded constituted improper cross-examination. State v. La Croix, 8 S.D. 369, 66 N.W. 944; State v. Egan, supra; State v. Williams, 47 S.D. 68, 196 N.W. 291. Consequently, it is doubtful that either objection was sufficient to require consideration by the trial court or presents the pro......
-
State v. Davis
... ... Sec. 4894 Rev.Code 1919. And it had become settled that error on appeal could not be predicated on a court's refusal to advise a verdict of acquittal. State v. Titus, 64 S.D. 280, 266 N.W. 260; and State v. Williams, 47 S.D. 68, 196 [77 S.D. 89] N.W. 291. SDC 34.3650 was enacted to grant the trial court power to direct an acquittal and to authorize a defendant to predicate error on its refusal to so direct. So much is obvious. Was more intended by the legislature? We think not ... The ... ...
- State v. Williams