Tyree v. Commonwealth, Record No. 3107.
| Decision Date | 14 October 1946 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 3107. |
| Parties | JOSEPH MARSHALL TYREE v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA. |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
Present, Holt, C.J., and Hudgins, Gregory, Eggleston and Spratley, JJ.
1. SEDUCTION — Corroboration of Prosecutrix — Corroboration in Every Detail Unnecessary. — In a prosecution for seduction, the testimony of the prosecutrix need not be corroborated in every detail.
2. SEDUCTION — Instructions — Corroboration of Prosecutrix — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, accused assigned as error the giving of an instruction which told the jury that while they could not convict on the uncorroborated testimony of the prosecutrix, yet if the admissions of accused and other surrounding circumstances substantiated her testimony so as to satisfy their minds, beyond a reasonable doubt, of the truth of her statements, this was sufficient. Accused testified that he paid the board of the prosecutrix for three weeks, that he had been to her home in connection with the affair and that he had met her and her family in the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney to discuss the matter.
Held: That the instruction was appropriate and proper.
3. SEDUCTION — Instructions — Necessity of Proving Exact Time of Seduction — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, accused assigned as error the giving of an instruction which told the jury that the exact time of the seduction was never material and that it was not essential that the prosecutrix should be corroborated as to the exact date, and that it was only necessary to show that the prosecution was instituted within the statutory period in that the indictment was found within two years after the commission of the alleged offense. Accused contended that inasmuch as he testified that at the time he was at a place other than the place where the seduction was alleged to have occurred, this in itself made it important that the Commonwealth prove the exact time of the seduction.
Held: That there was no merit in the contention.
4. SEDUCTION — Proof of Exact Time Not Material. — In Virginia, in a prosecution for seduction, proof of the exact time of the seduction is not material as long as it is shown to have taken place within the statutory limit, and, likewise, corroborating proof of the exact time is not necessary.
5. SEDUCTION — Promise of Marriage — Knowledge by Prosecutrix That Accused Was Married — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, accused, a married man, objected to the amendment of an instruction by deleting therefrom the language "and in considering the evidence in this case the jury should consider whether or not the woman knew the accused was a married man and that he could not marry her." Accused contended that the Commonwealth must not only prove that the prosecutrix was seduced under a promise of marriage, but that her testimony must be corroborated as to the promise of marriage.
Held: No error, since section 4410 of the Code of 1942, the seduction statute, does not require, in the case of a married man, that there be a promise of marriage, and knowledge by the prosecutrix that the accused was a married man does not bar the prosecution.
6. SEDUCTION — Instructions — Presumption and Burden of Proof of Chastity — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, accused assigned as error the refusal of an instruction that unless the jury believed the prosecutrix was a female of previous chaste character, then the jury must acquit accused and that when evidence was introduced tending to prove that prosecutrix, before the alleged sexual relations with accused, had already had such relations with other men, the presumption of a pure and chaste character on the part of the prosecutrix had been overcome and the burden was on the Commonwealth to prove beyond all reasonable doubt not only that accused seduced her but that she was a pure and chaste woman at the time, and that if the jury were in doubt as to whether she had had sexual relations with a man prior to the alleged relations with accused, the jury must give accused the benefit of the doubt, for the burden was upon the Commonwealth to prove her chasity beyond all reasonable doubt.
Held: That the trial court was correct in refusing the instruction.
7. SEDUCTION — Presumption and Burden of Proof of Chastity. — Section 4410 of the Code of 1942, punishing seduction, requires that the prosecutrix be a woman of previous chaste character before she can be the victim of a seduction but her chastity is presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary and the burden is upon accused to adduce evidence that will, at least, raise a reasonable doubt as to her chastity when he relies upon that as a defense.
8. SEDUCTION — Questions for Jury — Reasonable Doubt of Chastity. — In a prosecution for seduction, whether there is a reasonable doubt of the chastity of the prosecutrix is to be determined by the jury.
9. INSTRUCTIONS — Exceptions and Objections — Necessity for — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, the failure of the court to grant an instruction requested by accused was assigned as error, but the record failed to show that accused objected to the action of the court in not granting the instruction, and it did not show that any exception was taken to the court's action.
Held: That the assignment of error could not be considered because there had been a failure to comply with Rule 22 of the Supreme Court of Appeals.
10. SEDUCTION — Evidence — Sufficiency — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, one assignment or error was that the evidence failed to support the verdict. The prosecutrix testified as to the seduction and as to the time and place and that she was of previous chaste character. Accused testified that he was elsewhere on the day of the alleged seduction but he admitted that he had paid the board of the prosecutrix for three weeks, and that he had been to her home in connection with the affair and that he had met her and her family in the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney to discuss the matter.
Held: That the case was one peculiarly for the jury and that the verdict was amply supported.
11. SEDUCTION — Seduction by Married Man — Sufficiency of Evidence — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, it was contended that there was no proof of seduction. The prosecutrix testified that accused, a married man, made protestations of love and affection, promised to marry her and that she believed him and that they had sexual relations.
Held: That the evidence met the requirements of seduction by a married man.
12. SEDUCTION — Questions for Jury — Corroboration of Prosecutrix — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, the prosecutrix testified as to the seduction and as to the time and place and that she was of previous chaste character. Accused testified that he was elsewhere on the day of the alleged seduction but he admitted that he had paid the board of the prosecutrix for three weeks, and that he had been to her home in connection with the affair and that he had met her and her family in the office of the Commonwealth's Attorney to discuss the matter.
Held: That whether prosecutrix's testimony, in its essential particulars, was sufficiently corroborated was for the jury.
13. SEDUCTION — Questions for Jury — Corroboration of Prosecutrix. — It is not necessary in a prosecution for seduction that the supporting evidence be such as would be sufficient to convict without the evidence of the prosecutrix, but merely of such pertinent facts and significant circumstances as tend clearly to support her testimony, and which satisfy the jury that she is worthy of credit. If there is such other testimony so fairly tending to support the prosecutrix's testimony as to the facts necessary to constitute the offense, generally it is for the jury to say whether or not she is corroborated.
14. WITNESSES — Cross-Examination — Statement by Court That Questions Were Immaterial — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for seduction, after a lengthy cross-examination of a witness, the court told counsel for accused that he was wasting too much time and that the questions being asked the witness were immaterial. An exception was taken to the remarks of the court. The evidence showed that the questions were, in fact, immaterial.
Held: No error.
15. ARGUMENTS AND CONDUCT OF COUNSEL — Curing Error — Instruction to Disregard Remarks — Case at Bar. — In the instant case, a prosecution for reduction, a mistrial was requested because of alleged improper remarks of the Commonwealth's Attorney. The trial court instructed the jury to disregard the remarks and nothing was reflected in the verdict which indicated that the jury was actuated by any prejudice.
Held: No error.
Error to a judgment of the Circuit Court of Amherst county. Hon. Edward Meeks, judge presiding.
The opinion states the case.
William Kinckle Allen and Edward J. Hotchkiss, Jr., for the plaintiff in error.
Abram P. Staples, Attorney General, and W. Carrington Thompson, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.
Joseph Marshall Tyree, the accused, was indicted, tried by a jury, and convicted of the seduction of Mancy Bryant. His punishment was fixed at two years in the penitentiary.
Nancy Bryant, who was sixteen years of age at the time of the alleged seduction, had been reared in the rural section of Amherst county. She had attended the public schools of the county, and at the time she was in the first year high school. In 1943 she left home, went to Lynchburg and became employed in the plant of the Old Dominion Box Company. After a few months she stopped work and returned to her home in Amherst county. During the time she was in Lynchburg she made her home...
To continue reading
Request your trial