The State v. Reed

• Citation: 55 S.W. 74,153 Mo. 451
• Parties: THE STATE v. REED, Appellant
• Decision Date: 23 January 1900
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

55 S.W. 74

153 Mo. 451

THE STATE v. REED, Appellant

Supreme Court of Missouri, Second Division

January 23, 1900

Appeal from Phelps Circuit Court. -- Hon. L. B. Woodside, Judge.

Affirmed.

Joseph J. Crites for appellant.

In the case at bar there is absolutely no evidence showing that at the time of the alleged seduction or at any other time, the prosecutrix was an "unmarried female." This fact should have been shown in evidence by the State. Where there is no evidence that at the time of the alleged seduction the prosecutrix was an unmarried female, a conviction will not be sustained. State v. Wheeler, 108 Mo. 658.

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

An examination of the evidence discloses ample testimony upon which the jury were warranted in drawing the conclusion that the prosecutrix was, at the time of the seduction, an unmarried female. And any evidence is relevant which tends even though slight, to induce belief in the truth of the charges, or in the truth of the denial or plea. Lane v Railroad, 132 Mo. 4; McDermott v. Judy, 67 Mo.App. 647; State v. Grant, 79 Mo. 113.

BURGESS J. Gantt, P. J., and Sherwood, J., concur.

OPINION

BURGESS, J.

The defendant was convicted in the circuit court of Phelps county for seducing Dora Johnson, an unmarried female under twenty-one years of age, under promise of marriage, and his punishment fixed at imprisonment in the county jail for fifteen days and a fine of $ 450. He appeals.

A brief statement of the facts is that, defendant, and the prosecuting witness lived in the same neighborhood in Phelps county, and that about five years prior to 1897, he began paying attention to her, calling upon her regularly and escorting her to church and other places, which he continued until in July, 1898. They became engaged to be married during the summer of 1895. In the latter part of 1897, or the first of January, 1898, while at the house of her uncle in said county, defendant, under said promise of marriage and by reason thereof, had sexual intercourse with said Dora, which was thereafter kept up whenever a favorable opportunity was offered, until she finally became pregnant by defendant, and was delivered of a child of which he is the father on the 3d day of November, 1898. The evidence was conflicting as to whether or not she was of good repute prior to having been seduced by defendant. She was twenty years of age on the 23d day of November next preceding the trial, which was in March, 1899, while the offense was committed in the latter part of 1897, or the early part of January, 1898.

There are but two points raised by this appeal, first, that there was no proof that Dora Johnson was an unmarried female at the time of the commission of the alleged offense; second, that the court erred in giving the first instruction on the part of the State.

With respect to the first proposition it may be said that in...