Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 24 April 1911
• Docket Number: 14,846
• Citation: 54 So. 857,99 Miss. 274
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN WILLIAMS v. STATE

54 So. 857

99 Miss. 274

JOHN WILLIAMS v. STATE

No. 14,846

Supreme Court of Mississippi

April 24, 1911

APPEAL from the circuit court of Simpson county, HON.W. H. HUGHES Judge.

John Williams was convicted of the crime of rape and appeals.

The facts are fully stated in the opinion of the court.

Reversed and remanded.

A. M Edwards and Hilton & Hilton, for appellant.

Jas. R McDowell, assistant attorney-general, for the state.

Counsel on both sides filed elaborate briefs dealing only with the facts in the case.

OPINION

ANDERSON, J.

The appellant, John Williams, was convicted of the rape of a female child under the age of twelve years, sentenced to life imprisonment, and appeals to this court.

That the appellant used no force to accomplish his purpose, the female giving her consent thereto, is amply shown by the evidence. This fact, under the statute, constitutes no defense to the alleged crime, provided the female was, at the time, under the age of twelve years; while, if she was over twelve years of age, it would be a good defense. There is very serious doubt, from the evidence, whether, at the time of the alleged crime, the female was under the age of twelve years. One ground of the motion for a new trial is based on newly discovered evidence, namely, the evidence of three witnesses, who, it is alleged, would testify to facts and circumstances which would show that, at the time of the alleged crime, the female was over the age of twelve years. This ground of the motion is supported by the affidavit of the appellant in due form, as well as the affidavits of the witnesses whose testimony was discovered after the trial, in which they set out the facts to which they will testify, which, if true, show that at the time of the alleged crime she was in fact over twelve years of age.

It is undoubtedly the rule that courts will grant, with great reluctance, new trials founded on newly discovered evidence especially when such evidence is merely cumulative, or which simply tends to impeach the testimony of one or more witnesses who have testified; but, where the newly discovered evidence is corroborative, the rule is not enforced with the same strictness as where it is merely cumulative. In L., N. O. & T. Ry. Co. v. Crayton, 69 Miss. 152, 12 So. 271, the distinction between corroborative and cumulative evidence is stated thus: "What does the legal mind understand by the words 'cumulative...