Thorne v. State
Decision Date | 09 June 1925 |
Docket Number | 6 Div. 614 |
Citation | 105 So. 709,21 Ala.App. 57 |
Parties | THORNE v. STATE. |
Court | Alabama Court of Appeals |
Rehearing Denied June 30, 1025
Appeal from Circuit Court, Walker County; R.L. Blanton, Judge.
Jack Thorne was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.
Certiorari denied by Supreme Court in Ex parte Thorne, 105 So. 711.
R.M. Montgomery, of Birmingham, and Gray & Powell, of Jasper, for appellant.
Harwell G. Davis, Atty. Gen., and Curtis, Pennington & Pou, of Jasper, for the State.
In neither of these cases was the question of profert raised, each being as to the fact of birth and its date. The decision in the Tarver Case was based upon the case of Kelly v. State, being a bastardy proceeding, and that of the Whatley Case being based upon Whatley's Case, 144 Ala. 68, 39 So. 1014, where the question was one alone of birth. For the first time, so far as we can find, is the question of profert of a baby in a seduction case presented squarely to the court. It is to be conceded that, even in bastardy cases, the authorities are in conflict, notably, State v. Danforth, 48 Iowa, 43, 30 Am.Rep. 387; Risk v. State, 19 Ind. 152; Keniston v. Rowe, 16 Me. 38; Barnes v. State, 37 Tex.Cr.R. 320, 39 S.W. 684. The foregoing are proceedings in bastardy. In this state and in a bastardy proceeding our court has held that it was competent to make profert of the baby, after proper identification, to show resemblance to the reputed father. Kelly v. State, 133 Ala. 195, 32 So. 56, 91 Am.St.Rep. 25; White v. State, 74 Ala. 31; State v. Arnold, 35 N.C. (13 Ired.) 184; State v. Woodruff, 67 N.C. 89; Gentry v. McMinnis, 3 Dana (Ky.) 385. The uncertainty of this character of proof is everywhere conceded, and but for the decisions of our own court on the subject we might be inclined to hold otherwise. However unsatisfactory it may be, where as in this case the question of the paternity of the child becomes relevant for any purpose, the jury should have the benefit of a personal inspection of the child that through the sense of sight they may draw their own conclusions, as to a resemblance between the defendant and the baby. If there had been no denial of intercourse at the time as testified to by prosecutrix, a different rule might apply, but in this case the defendant denied the cohabitation, so that, if the child born as a result of intercourse at about the time testified to by the girl was of such resemblance to defendant as to impress the jury that the child was the defendant's, such evidence would corroborate the testimony of prosecutrix and tend to an impeachment of defendant's statement that he did not have intercourse with prosecutrix. So that, if the admission of this testimony was technically inadmissible at the time of its admission, it became legal after all the facts had been brought out. Profert of the baby was properly allowed.
That the prosecutrix was about 18 years of age, that she was usually alone during the mornings of each day, that her father's place of business was in Cordova, that her father did not stay at home during the day, that her brother was away from home during the daytime when defendant was visiting her at the house, and other similar testimony to which objection was made, was relevant as tending to show the condition, surroundings, and opportunity of the parties for carrying on a courtship and such intercourse as they desired to indulge in, free from interference on the part of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mullins v. State, 8 Div. 147.
... ... The trial court ... heard the evidence pro and con, and, indulging the ... presumptions in favor of the court's decision, we must ... hold that there was no error in overruling the motion for a ... new trial on this ground. Dempsey v. State, 15 Ala ... App. 199, 72 So. 773; Thorne v. State, 21 Ala. App ... 57, 105 So. 709; Boswell v. Land, 217 Ala. 39, 114 ... So. 470; Dill v. State, 5 Ala. App. 162, 59 So. 307; ... 16 Corpus Juris, p. 1162, § 2671 ... It ... further appears from the record that another ground of the ... motion for a new trial was that some ... ...
-
Smith v. State
...this argument of defendant's counsel. Fuller v. State, 147 Ala. 35, 41 So. 774; Mitchell v. State, 114 Ala. 1, 22 So. 71; Thorne v. State, 21 Ala.App. 57, 105 So. 709. As part of his defense, defendant introduced into evidence a pistol which defendant's witnesses testified as having been in......
-
Poole v. State
...the affirmative charge has been given or refused. It is true, as above stated, the Supreme Court denied the writ of certiorari in the Thorne case, supra, in so doing, the above-stated proposition was expressly disapproved. In this connection the Supreme Court said: "We think the statement i......
-
Wyres v. State
...there was no error in overruling the motion for a new trial on this ground. Dempsey v. State, 15 Ala.App. 199, 72 So. 773; Thorne v. State, 21 Ala.App. 57, 105 So. 709; Mullins v. State, 24 Ala.App. 78, 130 So. Adams v. State, Ala.App., 26 So.2d 216. This same principle also disposes of tha......