State v. Wycoff

• Court: Iowa Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: GIVEN
• Citation: State v. Wycoff, 113 Iowa 670, 83 N.W. 713 (Iowa 1900)
• Decision Date: 04 October 1900
• Parties: STATE v. WYCOFF.

113 Iowa 670

83 N.W. 713

STATE

v.WYCOFF.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Oct. 4, 1900.

Appeal from district court, Shelby county; N. W. Macy, Judge.

The defendant was indicted, tried, and convicted of the crime of seduction, and from the judgment of imprisonment rendered against him he appeals. Affirmed.Byers & Lockwood, for appellant.

Milton Remley, Atty. Gen., and Chas. A. Van Vleck, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

GIVEN, J.

1. The charge is that on the 12th day of December, 1897, the defendant “did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously seduce, debauch, and carnally know one Flora N. Whitcher, said Flora N. Whitcher then and there being an unmarried female of previously chaste character, contrary to and in violation of law.” The defendant's first contention is that there is not sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict and judgment, in that it does not show that the defendant used seductive means, or that the prosecutrix was of previous chaste character. On the 8th day of October, 1897, the prosecutrix, then aged 23, came from the state of New York, where she had resided the previous nine years with her grandparents, to live in the home of her parents, in a village in Shelby county. On the evening of the 9th she met the defendant, a young man of 22, who had been reared on a farm in that neighborhood, at a dance in a neighbor's house. From that time until December 26th following the defendant was constant in his attentions to the prosecutrix, visiting and escorting her to church, to parties often, and on frequent drives. She testified in chief that on the evening of December 12th they went for a drive after church. That he put his arms around her, as he had done once before. “He then said that if anything happened to me at any time that he would stand by me, and that he thought lots of me, and more than of any other young lady that he had kept company with, and he said that he would like to have me keep company with him only. That he would keep company with me and no other young lady, and he wished to have me do so also. We drove a little south of the Shelby county line, and turned the team around, and here is where he first attempted anything wrong with me. He said he would not leave me in any trouble. We had sexual intercourse, and went home. This was on the 12th day of December.” On cross-examination she said: “I stated in Justice Fisher's court that all that was said by Wycoff after we had turned and gone south half a mile, and wanted intercourse, was that he would stay by me, and I still say this statement is true.” On recall she said: “The third time defendant was with me was the first time he kissed and embraced me. He said that he loved me, and called me his darling. He was in my company every Sunday night after October 8th. He said that I looked better than other girls. On December 12th we had sexual intercourse, and he embraced and kissed me, and told me he would not leave me if I got in trouble. I believed him.” She also stated that the defendant was the father of her child, born November 27, 1898. The defendant testified: “I never, prior to December 15th, called Flora my darling. Never told her that I loved her, nor that she was the best looking girl I ever saw, nor that I liked her better than all other girls. I never told her to wear certain nice clothes.” Again he says: “I did not tell the girl then that I loved her. I had my arm around her, and kissed her. There was quite a bit of kissing done by both of us. I generally put my arm around her whenever I took her buggy riding.” Defendant admits having had sexual intercourse with the prosecutrix during the period of their intimacy. In view of the undisputed facts, her testimony as to what the defendant said and did to gain her consent to sexual intercourse is reasonable and consistent therewith, but not so as to his denials.

It is insisted in argument that as the prosecutrix acted improperly in going with the defendant at a certain time, and in permitting him to have improper familiarities soon after their first acquaintance, she was not of chaste character, nor influenced by any arts, flattery, or promises made by the defendant. It is certainly true that she did not conduct herself with propriety towards the defendant, else she would have repelled his improper advances at once; but was it not because of his conduct towards her that she permitted these improprieties? If he had never attempted, nor she permitted, undue familiarities, they would never have come into this trouble. It is just such improprieties that lead to seduction. Her statement in justice's court is not inconsistent with her other testimony. It does not follow that, because all that was said by the defendant after they turned south “was that he would stay by me,” he did not say the other things testified to before they turned south. The prosecutrix testified that on December 15th she went to a dance with one Archer; that she asked Archer to come again; told him if he would keep company she would quit Wycoff; and that he never came, because she went with the defendant. It is insisted because of this...