Weaver v. State

• Decision Date: 10 January 1905
• Parties: WEAVER v. STATE.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

39 So. 341

142 Ala. 33

WEAVER v. STATE.

Supreme Court of Alabama

January 10, 1905

Appeal from Circuit Court, Conecuh County; J. C. Richardson, Judge.

Colonel Weaver was convicted of seduction, and he appeals. Affirmed.

The evidence for the state tended to show that Mollie Jerkins, a young woman, was at the time of the trial the mother of a child born in November, 1902, of which the defendant was the father; that she and defendant became acquainted with each other in 1899, and from that time until August, 1902, were together frequently; that in November, 1901, she made him a promise of marriage, and soon afterwards had sexual intercourse with him for the first time, and continued to do so until August, 1902, when she informed defendant that she was in a family way and requested him to keep his promise to marry her, which he declined to do, and left the community and did not return until he was arrested and brought back under the present indictment. The evidence for the defendant tended to show that the defendant was sick and confined to his father's house with measles from February 1, 1902 until March 15, 1902, and that he did not go to see Mollie Jerkins during that time. And the defendant testified in substance that in 1898 he and the prosecutrix became engaged to marry, but this engagement was broken in September of that year, and nothing afterwards was ever said between them on that subject; that afterwards, and until August, 1902, he frequently had intercourse with her, except during the months of February and March, 1902, when he was sick with measles that he was not the father of the child; that he left the community in August, 1902, when informed that she was in a family way; that he wrote the letters offered in evidence by the state to the prosecutrix. On the examination of Mollie Jerkins, the prosecutrix, she was asked by the solicitor "Was it in Conecuh county that the baby was born and the promise to marry made and sexual intercourse had?" to which the defendant objected, the court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted. The witness answered "Yes; it all happened in Conecuh county." John Jerkins, a brother of the prosecutrix, testifying for the state, stated that he heard defendant "tell her one night in 1901 he loved her" to which the defendant objected, the court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted. J. R. Jerkins, father of the prosecutrix, testifying for the state, was asked by the solicitor whether he had seen the defendant in that community after August, 1902, to which the defendant objected, the court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted. The witness answered, "No; not until he was brought back." On the further examination of the prosecutrix she testified that after the defendant left the community she received letters from him, that she knew his handwriting and that the letters were written by him, and that they were received, some by mail and some from members of defendant's family. The state offered the letters in evidence, the defendant objected, the court overruled the objection, and defendant excepted. The letters were lengthy and contained many references to the relations between them, and allusions to his promises to marry her. One of the letters admitted was signed "Your beast friend." In his argument to the jury the solicitor stated that the defendant characterized the sort of a friend he was to the prosecutrix when he signed the letter in that manner. The defendant objected to the argument and moved to exclude same from the jury, the court overruled the objection and motion, and defendant excepted.

Upon the introduction of all the evidence the defendant requested the following charges, which the court refused, and he excepted: "The court charges the jury that if the evidence satisfies you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mollie Jerkins surrendered her virtue and had sexual intercourse with defendant as a result of a promise of marriage made to her by defendant, but that said promise was made by defendant and said Mollie Jerkins surrendered her virtue in 1898, then your verdict must be for defendant. The court charges the jury that if you believe from the evidence that Mollie Jerkins had illicit intercourse with the defendant in this case prior to the first Thursday after Christmas, 1901, and at a time prior to date she swore she first had sexual connection with defendant, then said Mollie Jerkins was not on said first Thursday after Christmas a chaste woman, and your verdict must be for defendant. * * * (f) The court charges the jury that, when the defendant offered evidence tending to prove that Mollie Jerkins was an unchaste woman at the time of the alleged offense, it was permissible for the state to offer evidence as to the general character of Mollie Jerkins for chastity, and the failure of the state to offer such evidence is a circumstance you can look to in determining whether or not Mollie Jerkins was a chaste woman at the time of the alleged seduction. * * * (h) The court charges the jury that the evidence in this case does not show such a corroboration of the testimony of Mollie Jerkins as will authorize a verdict against the defendant. The court charges the jury that, though you may believe from the evidence that the defendant Mollie Jerkins were engaged to be married, and they had sexual intercourse, this is not sufficient to convict the defendant, unless you believe from the evidence beyond all reasonable doubt that Mollie Jerkins yielded to the sexual intercourse on account of the promise of marriage, and this fact of the promise of marriage is corroborated by another witness or witnesses in the case and was the proximate cause of her yielding to the sexual intercourse, then you must find the defendant not guilty. * * * (3) If you believe from the evidence in the case that Mollie Jerkins was as willing or as much willing as the defendant to the sexual intercourse as the defendant, or you have a reasonable doubt on this subject after looking at all the evidence in the case, or unless the state, or all the evidence on this subject, after considering the evidence as a whole, so convince you beyond all reasonable doubt that Mollie Jerkins did not yield to the sexual intercourse to gratify her own passions and desires, then you must find the defendant not guilty. (4) If you believe from the evidence in the case that Mollie Jerkins, the prosecutrix, was more or as willing as the defendant to have sexual intercourse, and they did have sexual intercourse under these circumstances, then your verdict must be for the defendant, and you must find him not guilty. (5) The presumption of innocence is with the defendant when he enters upon his trial, and...