Hay v. State
Decision Date | 28 May 1912 |
Docket Number | 22,132 |
Citation | 98 N.E. 712,178 Ind. 478 |
Parties | Hay v. State of Indiana |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied November 20, 1912.
From Dubois Circuit Court, John L. Bretz, Judge.
Prosecution by the State of Indiana against Floyd Hay. From a judgment of conviction, the defendant appeals.
Affirmed.
Lindsey & Brock, for appellant.
Thomas M. Honan, Attorney-General, Thomas H. Branaman, Edwin Corr and James E. McCullough, for the State.
Prosecution by affidavit, for seduction, under § 2354 Burns 1908 Acts 1905 p. 584, § 458. Appellant filed a motion to quash the affidavit, which was overruled. Trial by jury, with verdict of guilty. From a judgment of conviction, this appeal is prosecuted.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in overruling his motion to quash. The motion was oral, and the record discloses no ground on which it was based; consequently it presents nothing here for consideration. Scott v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 382, 96 N.E. 125; Hawks v. State (1911), 176 Ind. 602, 96 N.E. 593; Leach v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 234, 97 N.E. 792. Appellant has assigned as error here that the affidavit does not state facts sufficient to constitute a public offense. The affidavit is sufficient when assailed on this ground for the first time in this court. Robinson v. State (1912), 177 Ind. 263, 266, 97 N.E. 929. Complaint is made of instructions five and six, given by the court on its own motion. These instructions related to corroborative evidence required by § 2120 Burns 1908, Acts 1905 p. 584, § 244. Without setting out these instructions, it is sufficient to say that neither of them was erroneous.
In instruction ten, given by the court on its own motion, the jury was directed as follows: "In determining whether the prosecuting witness has been corroborated by one or more witnesses, or by witness or witnesses and strong circumstantial evidence, you have a right to consider along with all the evidence given in the case, * * * the fact, if it be a fact, that at about the time of the alleged seduction, the prosecuting witness made any preparations for herself in getting ready for the approaching marriage ceremony, and whether about the same time she made any preparations for going to housekeeping.
Appellant, by his requested instruction five and one-half, sought to have the jury informed as follows: "I instruct you that evidence that the prosecuting witness sometime after she claims that the defendant seduced her, made some new clothes and quilts, and performed other acts in preparation of marriage, cannot be considered by you as corroborating or tending to corroborate the prosecuting witness, that the defendant promised to marry her, and that she yielded to his solicitations because of that promise, but the corroborating testimony must come from some witness other than the prosecuting witness."
It is earnestly contended by appellant that the court erred both in giving instruction ten, and in refusing instruction five and one-half, requested, because the jury was, in effect, informed that a mutual promise to marry might be inferred from things done by the prosecuting witness, without the presence or knowledge of defendant; that such evidence is merely self-serving. It is not claimed by the State that there was any evidence, aside from that of the prosecuting witness, that defendant had any knowledge of her preparations for a wedding.
In Graham v. Martin (1878), 64 Ind. 567, an action for breach of promise to marry, the question here involved was decided by this court. In the course of the opinion the following language was used:
In the discussion of this subject in 4 Elliott, Evidence § 3149, the author says:
The doctrine declared by Judge Elliott is approved quite generally in other jurisdictions. People v. Tibbs (1904), 143 Cal. 100, 76 P. 904; Cooper v. State (1890), 90 Ala. 641, 8 So. 821; State v. Lenihan (1893), 88 Iowa 670, 56 N.W. 292; State v. Buxton (1894), 89 Iowa 573, 57 N.W. 417; Commonwealth v. Walton (1868), 2 Brews. (Pa.) 425; Russell v. Cowles, supra; Weaver v. Bachert (1845), 2 Pa. 80, 44 Am. Dec. 159; 11 Ency. Ev. 699. We are of the opinion that the court erred both in giving instruction ten and in refusing the one requested.
Appellant also claims the court erred in refusing his requested instruction nine, which was as follows: (Italics ours, here and throughout opinion.) Myrtle Whitten did not testify to her own previous reputation for chastity. It would be remarkable that any one, in any case, should testify to his own reputation. While the State was bound to prove that Myrtle Whitten was, at the time of the alleged seduction, "of good repute for chastity", it was not bound to prove such repute by her, and consequently the instruction tendered was erroneous, and there was no error in refusing it.
Counsel for appellant earnestly contend that there was not, after eliminating from consideration the evidence relating to Myrtle Whitten's preparations for marriage, sufficient corroborative evidence to sustain the verdict under § 2120, supra, which provides that "in prosecutions for seduction, * * * the evidence of the female must be supported by at least one other witness, or by strong corroborating circumstances as to every material point necessary to the commission of the offense." This statute was enacted in 1905 (Acts 1905 p. 584, § 244). It superseded the statute of 1881, which provided that "the evidence of the female must be corroborated to the extent required as to the principal witness in cases of perjury." § 1807 R. S. 1881, § 1876 Burns 1901.
In La Rosae v. State (1892), 132 Ind. 219, 31 N.E. 798, it was held, in substance, that the testimony of the female, on each material point, must be corroborated to the extent required as to the principal witness in cases of perjury.
It is insisted by appellant that under § 2120, supra the evidence of the female must be supported not merely by corroborating circumstances, but such corroborative evidence must be "strong", and if such evidence is not "strong", it is the duty of this court to set aside the verdict. On the other hand the Attorney-General claims that if...
To continue reading
Request your trial