Taylor v. State

• Decision Date: 22 October 1932
• Citation: 53 S.W.2d 377,165 Tenn. 156
• Parties: TAYLOR v. STATE.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

53 S.W.2d 377

165 Tenn. 156

TAYLOR v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 22, 1932

Error to Circuit Court, Cocke County; James L. Drinnon, Judge.

Al Taylor was convicted of an offense, and he brings error.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Hooper & Crawford, of Newport, for plaintiff in error Al Taylor.

W. F Barry, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

CHAMBLISS J.

This appeal is from a conviction of violation of the age of consent. Plaintiff in error is a married man. The female was only fourteen in September, 1930, the date of the offense named in the indictment. Numerous acts of intercourse between the parties are admitted. A child was born in 1931. The defense is that the female was bawd, lewd, or kept at and before the time plaintiff in error had carnal knowledge of her. This was the sole issue of fact. Various facts and circumstances are testified to in support of this defense. The record establishes both that this young female was unusually mature for her years, and that she was guilty of conduct indicative of lascivious and lewd tendencies. Her admitted possession and circulation of certain writings in the record induce this conclusion. We find it unnecessary to review and weigh the testimony as a whole and decide as to the preponderance of the evidence, for the reason that we find it necessary to reverse the case on the ground of exclusion of certain testimony challenged by the fourth and sixth assignments of error.

One Martha Mathis testified to having witnessed an act of intercourse between the female and Carl Taylor, a young brother of the plaintiff in error. She fixed the time in the year 1927, which would make the female somewhat under twelve years of age. Carl Taylor testified to the same effect identifying the occasion and circumstances given by Martha Mathis, but saying he could not give the date.

In response to objections by the Attorney General, the court first admitted the testimony of Martha Mathis, but immediately after, when Carl Taylor was offered, held that evidence of anything happening when the female was under twelve years was incompetent, saying, "As I construe the Statute she would have to be over twelve years of age, if you are attempting to show that she was a bawd, lewd or kept female--if she was under that you could not." Then counsel for the defendant asked: "Does your honor withdraw that other testimony?" evidently referring to the witness ...