The State v. O'Keefe

• Decision Date: 09 November 1897
• Citation: 42 S.W. 725,141 Mo. 271
• Parties: The State v. O'Keefe, Appellant
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

42 S.W. 725

141 Mo. 271

The State v. O'Keefe, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

November 9, 1897

Appeal from Ralls Circuit Court. -- Hon. Reuben F. Roy, Judge.

Affirmed.

Edward C. Crow, Attorney-General, and Sam B. Jeffries, Assistant Attorney-General, for the State.

(1) The instruction offered by defendant to the effect that if the defendant had been willing at all times since the alleged seduction to marry the prosecuting witness, and offered to do so, the jury may take such fact into consideration in assessing his penalty, was properly refused. An offer to marry by the defendant will not excuse him, unless accepted by the party injured; nor can it be considered a circumstance in its nature mitigating. State v. Brandenburg, 118 Mo. 181. (2) The proper corroborating testimony to warrant a conviction is shown. Corroborating evidence is only required as to the promise of marriage. State v. Hill, 91 Mo 423; State v. Brassfield, 81 Mo. 151. (3) Corroboration as to the promise of marriage need not be by positive evidence, but may be shown by circumstances. State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658. (4) The indictment is in usual form heretofore approved, and practically follows the language of the statute. State v. Stinehouse, 47 Ind. 17; State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368; State v Eckler, 106 Mo. 585.

Gantt P. J. Sherwood and Burgess, JJ., concur.

OPINION

Gantt, P. J.

At the August term, 1894, of the Ralls circuit court, defendant was indicted for seducing and debauching the prosecutrix under promise of marriage.

At the same term a plea of not guilty was duly entered, and at the March term, 1895, he was tried and convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary for two years. The bill of exceptions was signed by the judge July 26, 1895, and the transcript was not certified to this court until August 12, 1896, more than a year after the record was made. No docket fee was sent with the transcript and it has thus slumbered another year. No counsel has appeared in this court in behalf of defendant and we have been compelled to make our own examination of the record.

The indictment is as follows:

"The grand jury for the State of Missouri, summoned from the body of Ralls county, impaneled, charged and sworn, upon their oaths present and charge that Charles O'Keefe, late of the county of Ralls, on the day of , 1892, at the said county of Ralls in the State of Missouri, did then and there, under and by promise of marriage made to one Annie Elizabeth Hightower by him, the said Charles O'Keefe, unlawfully and feloniously seduce and debauch her, the said Annie Elizabeth Hightower, she, the said Annie Elizabeth Hightower, being then and there an unmarried female of good repute and under eighteen years of age, against the peace and dignity of the State."

I. A motion to quash was lodged against the indictment because it did not state facts sufficient to charge defendant with the crime of seduction or any other crime under our laws. The indictment is sufficient. It charges every fact essential to a conviction for seduction. It received the express approval of this court in State v. Primm, 98 Mo. 368, 11 S.W. 732; Kelly's Crim. Law, sec. 555.

II. The instructions for the State are full and such as have been approved often by this court. No good purpose can be subserved by again setting them out in full. They will stand the most severe criticism.

III. The defendant offered the following instruction which was refused:

"While the fact that the defendant...