Watson v. State

• Decision Date: 25 June 1923
• Docket Number: 82
• Citation: Watson v. State, 252 S.W. 582, 159 Ark. 628 (Ark. 1923)
• Parties: WATSON v. STATE
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

252 S.W. 582

159 Ark. 628

WATSON v. STATE

No. 82

Supreme Court of Arkansas

June 25, 1923

Appeal from Frankling Circuit Court, Ozark District; James Cochran Judge; reversed.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded.

J P. Clayton, J. D. Benson, and Dave Partain, for appellant.

There was no evidence corroborating the testimony of prosecutrix. Sec. 2414, C. & M. Digest; 40 Ark. 482; 77 Ark. 16; 92 Ark 41. Instruction 11 should have been given and a verdict instructed for defendant. Promise of marriage not unconditional. 113 Ark. 520; 135 Ark. 221. The court erred in refusing to give appellant's requested instructions numbered 6, 7 and 10. 77 Ark. 472. Requested instruction numbered 1 should have been especially in view of court's instruction number 1. 73 Ark. 235. The charge of the court does not follow either the indictment or the statute. 72 Ark. 398. The court erred in giving instruction No. 7.

J. S. Utley, Attorney General, John L. Carter and W. T. Hammock, Assistants, for appellee.

The evidence is sufficient to support the verdict; the testimony of the prosecutrix was sufficiently corroborated. Sec. 2414, C. & M. Digest; 24 R. C. L. 779; 154 Ark. 119; 126 Ark. 98 Cases cited by appellant, 92 Ark. 421, and 77 Ark. 472, distinguished. Unconditional express promise of marriage. 135 Ark. 221. Instructions 6, 7 and 10 requested are covered by 1, 2 and 3 given. Instruction 5 properly refused. 77 Ark. 476. Instruction 1, refused, substantially covered by 5, to which no specific objection was made. Neither was there any specific objection made to giving of instruction 7. 154 Ark. 67; 142 Ark. 96.

J. D. Benson, J. P. Clayton, and Dave Partain, in reply.

Case should be reversed on account of erroneous instruction 1. "Express" defined. Webster's New International Dictionary. 2 Words & Phrases (sec. series) 405; 72 Ark. 398.

OPINION

HUMPHREYS, J.

Appellant was indicted, tried and convicted of the crime of seduction in Franklin Circuit Court, Ozark District, and as punishment therefor adjudged to serve one year in the State Penitentiary. From that judgment an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.

Appellant's first contention for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict, first, because it does not reveal an unconditional promise by appellant to marry the prosecutrix as an inducement to the act of sexual intercourse; and second, that the evidence of the prosecutrix was without corroboration.

The prosecutrix testified in response to interrogations as follows: "Q. How did you come to have intercourse with him? A. Because I loved him. Q. And his promise of marriage? A. Yes sir." The prosecutrix also testified that two dates were set for their marriage. This testimony meets the requirement of the law, that there must be unconditional promise of marriage.

The law requires that the testimony of the prosecutrix be corroborated, both as to the promise of marriage and the fact of intercourse, by proof, other than her own, of a direct or inferential nature. Polk v. State, 40 Ark. 482; Lasater v. State, 77 Ark. 468, 94 S.W. 59; Nichol v. State, 97 Ark. 420, 134 S.W. 622. The prosecutrix testified that the courtship of herself and appellant covered a period of about fifteen months; that during the time they were twice engaged; that appellant first promised to marry her in the spring of 1921; that she purchased some clothing for the occasion, and for that purpose went to Webb City in company with Walter Conley and his wife during the month of March, 1921; that subsequently the engagement was broken, but was renewed in August of the same year; that at that time she yielded her person to him, and the illicit relationship continued for a number of months; that in November she became pregnant by appellant, and as a result a child was born in August, 1922; that during the first and second courtships he came to see her from one to four times a week, and that she received him to the exclusion of all others, except very occasionally she would go with some other boy, and he with some other girl. Arch Sewell, father of the prosecuting witness, testified that appellant came to see his daughter continually for a long period of time, beginning some time in 1921; that his daughter received his attentions to the exclusion of others; that he went with her regularly and took her to parties, church, Sunday-school, and prayer meeting; that during the continued courtship he purchased clothes twice for his daughter to get married. The deputy sheriff of Logan County, a Mr. Kirkpatrick, testified that, in a conversation with appellant and his father, Mr. Watson, the father said that the boy had fixed to get married at one time but he put a stop to it, to which statement appellant replied that he would have taken the girl but was damned proud now that he didn't.

Walter Conley testified that in March, 1921, the prosecutrix accompanied him and his wife to Webb City, but that he could not remember whether she bought anything on that occasion.

It is inferable from the testimony of Arch Sewell that his daughter was engaged to appellant, and that appellant was the father of the child; also that his daughter and appellant were engaged. His testimony showed a long constant, persistent, exclusive courtship, during which time he purchased clothing for his daughter on two occasions for them to marry. The testimony of Walter Conley corroborates that of the prosecutrix, to some extent, with reference to buying a dress in which to marry. The testimony of the deputy sheriff tends to establish an admission on the part of appellant that he was engaged to the prosecutrix. There was, then, corroborating testimony from which the promise of marriage and the fact...