{
  "id": 1378564,
  "name": "Burrow v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Burrow v. State",
  "decision_date": "1924-11-03",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "138",
  "last_page": "139",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 Ark. 138"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "84 Ark. 67",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1524374
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/84/0067-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "123 Ark. 565",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1556160
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/123/0565-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ark. 608",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8727965
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/12/0608-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 224,
    "char_count": 3156,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43594819620757813
    },
    "sha256": "6503acfe59286cbc1edb1e96a8ccd71c3ee655527c598903eca5f0edfaecb78d",
    "simhash": "1:c523243d859b6e9c",
    "word_count": 509
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:16.783155+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Burrow v. State."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "' ' Humphreys, J.\nAppellant was indicted, tried and convicted in the circuit' court of Randolph County for the crime of seduction, and'adjudged'to serve a term of two years'in the State Penitentiary and to pay a fine of $500 as punishment therefdr: From the judgment of conviction an appeal has been duly prosecuted to this court.\n\u25a0' Appellant was indicted under \u00a7 2414\"of Crawford -\u25a0& Moses\u2019 Digest, and the indictment is substantially in \"the language of the statute. ' '\nOne assignment of error insisted upon by appellant for a reversal- of the judgment is that the indictment . was fatally defective because it omitted to allege that the crime was committed with a felonious intent. Seduction was not a felony at common law, where a felonious intent was an essential' to the crime. 35 Cyc., p. 1329. T'he statute does not make a felonious intent an essential part of the crime, so the indictment sufficiently charged the \u25a0offense without alleging a felonious intent. State v. Eldridge, 12 Ark. 608; State v. Seawood, 123 Ark. 565.\nThe next assignment of error insisted upon by' appellant for a reversal of the judgment was the refusal of the court to admit in evidence twenty-four letters written by the prosecuting witness to appellant, in the fall after he had sexual intercourse with her in the spring and .summer. These letters tended to show that she was unchaste previous to the alleged seduction, and not merely that her thoughts lasciviously inclined toward appellant, who was charged- with seducing her: \u25a0 The letters should not therefore have been excluded, under the rule of evidence announced in the case of Wilhite v. State, 84 Ark. 67. In that case the letter was properly excluded on the ground that the contents thereof indicated that the prosecuting witness was bent up\u00f3n sexual intercourse with the defendant, and the court said that it did not lie in his mouth, after he had seduced, her, to show her lascivious inclination toward him.\nAgain, the letters were clearly admissible'as. affecting the credibility of the prosecuting witness.\nThere are other \u25a0 assignments of error which it. js unnecessary to discuss, as they will not likely recur on the retrial of the case.\nOn account of the error indicated the judgment'.!? reversed, and the cause is remanded for a new trial.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "' ' Humphreys, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Schoonover & Jackson and Smith & Blackford, for \u25a0appellant. \u25a0 \u2019 .",
      "J. S'. Utley, Attorney General, and John L. Garter, Assistant, for appellee.\""
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Burrow v. State.\nOpinion delivered November 3, 1924.\n1. Seduction \u2014 indictment\u2014felonious intent. \u2014 An indictment for seduction which charges the crime in the language of Crawford &. Moses\u2019 Dig., \u00a7 2414, sufficiently charges the offense without alleging a felonious intent, since seduction was not a felony at common law, and the statute does not make a felonious intent an essential part of the crime.\n2. Seduction \u2014 evidence of unchastity. \u2014 Exclusion of letters of the prosecutrix to accused, written after he had sexual intercourse with her, and tending to show that she was unchaste prior to the alleged seduction,, held reversible error. \u2022\nAppeal from Randolph Circuit Court; John G. Ashley, Judge;\nreversed.\nSchoonover & Jackson and Smith & Blackford, for \u25a0appellant. \u25a0 \u2019 .\nJ. S'. Utley, Attorney General, and John L. Garter, Assistant, for appellee.\""
  },
  "file_name": "0138-01",
  "first_page_order": 164,
  "last_page_order": 165
}