{ "id": 1485001, "name": "Tugg v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Tugg v. State", "decision_date": "1943-10-11", "docket_number": "4324", "first_page": "161", "last_page": "164", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "206 Ark. 161" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "174 S.W.2d 374" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "262 S. W. 989", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "165 Ark. 613", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "107 S. W. 380", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "85 Ark. 130", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1523305 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/85/0130-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 S. W. 929", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "84 Ark. 95", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1524458 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/84/0095-01" ] }, { "cite": "84 S. W. 507", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "73 Ark. 315", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1504016 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/73/0315-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 399", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1870964 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/37/0399-01" ] }, { "cite": "37 Ark. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1870958 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/37/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "154 S. W. 2d 813", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1449937 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/202/0934-01" ] }, { "cite": "202 Ark. 935", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "53 Am. St. Rep. 129", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Am. St. Rep.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 S. W. 554", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "63 Ark. 504", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8724160 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/63/0504-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 346, "char_count": 4991, "ocr_confidence": 0.49, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.236860147809524e-07, "percentile": 0.7796746065118082 }, "sha256": "c8c39718617c99f33cadc06eefde7d8b317a1eee646dc91e7544500ee25dd1a1", "simhash": "1:24ae1971a7c18c51", "word_count": 883 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:20:24.664732+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Tugg v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Smith, J.\nA sentence of one year in the penitentiary was imposed upon appellant on his trial for carnally knowing Gladys Scott, a female child under the age of 16 years, and from that judgment is this appeal.\nFor the reversal of this judgment it is earnestly insisted that the testimony is not legally sufficient to sustain the conviction, which rests upon the testimony of the girl and that of her mother.\nIt was shown that the girl\u2019s mother lived with appellant as his mistress, and that a child was thus begotten. A falling out had occurred, and it is insisted that this prosecution was the result of this disagreement.\nThese were, of course, questions of fact for the jury. The girl testified unequivocally that appellant had carnally known her on more than one occasion. This testimony, if believed, was, of course, sufficient to sustain the conviction.\nThere was no corroboration of the girl\u2019s testimony in this respect, but none was required, if her testimony was believed, as she was not an accomplice. Bond v. State, 63 Ark. 504, 39 S. W. 554, 53 Am. St. Rep. 129; Waterman v. State, 202 Ark. 935, 154 S. W. 2d 813.\nIt is insisted that there was not sufficient proof as to the girl\u2019s age, which should'have been shown by her birth certificate, or by the records of the Bureau of Vital Statistics. These records would have been competent to prove the girl\u2019s age; but the testimony offered on that subject was also competent. The girl\u2019s mother testified as to the- age of her daughter; and this was competent testimony.\nIt was objected that it was error to permit the girl herself to testify as to her age; but not so. In Wharton\u2019s Criminal Evidence, 11th Ed., Yol. 1, \u00a7 470, it is said that the general rule, from which there seems to be but little dissent, recognizes the competency of a' witness to give testimony as to his or her own age. In support of this statement two Arkansas cases are cited in the note to the text. These are: Edgar v. State, 37 Ark. 219; Pounders v. State, 37 Ark. 399.\n. The trial was held in April, and the girl testified that the last time appellant had sexual intercourse with her was the preceding summer. A physician testified that he had examined the girl, and that the condition of her hymen showed there had been a penetration, but not recently; but that she did not have, and there was no indication that she had ever had, gonorrhea. The physician was permitted to testify, without objection, that on March 24th, preceding the trial, appellant came to liis office for a blood examination, claiming that he had gonorrhea, but that he had' been treating himself, and the physician st\u00e1ted that he was unable to tell whether appellant had gonorrhea or not.\nAll this testimony was offered without objection. However, the question was later injected into the case and, this time, over appellant\u2019s objection and exception. Appellant had testified that he was approaching his 75th birthday, and that his sexual virility was impaired. He was asked: \u201cAre you able to have intercourse?,\u201d and he answered, \u201cNot at the present time,\u201d and was asked,\u201cWhat is the reason?,\u201d and answered, \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d \u2022He stated that he had last had sexual intercourse \u201cAbout six months ago,\u201d at which time he contracted gonorrhea, and this was the testimony to which objection was made. He denied having bad Intercourse with the girl at any time.\nWe think the testimony was competent to refute the inference that appellant had not liad intercourse with the girl about the time she stated the intercourse occurred on account of his sexual impotency.\nAn amendment to the motion for a new trial was filed in which it was assigned as error \u2018 \u2018 That the Court erred in giving instructions Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive, of his own motion, over the objection and exception of the defendant at the time. \u2019 \u2019 This is what is called an exception en masse, and the rule in regard to such an exception is that it will not be sustained if any of the included instructions correctly declares the law. Darden v. State, 73 Ark. 315, 84 S. W. 507; Johnson v. State, 84 Ark. 95, 104 S. W. 929; Martin v. State, 85 Ark. 130, 107 S. W. 380; Brown v. State, 165 Ark. 613, 262 S. W. 989.\nNo error in any of these instructions has been called to our attention, and several, at least, are the usual instructions given in felony cases which have been many times approved. This exception cannot, therefore, be sustained. We may say here, as was said by Justice Battle in the case of Martin v. State, supra, \u201cThe exception to the instructions was en masse, and one if not all of them being correct, was properly overruled. But an examination of them will show that no prejudicial error was committed in the giving of any of them. \u2019 \u2019\nNo error appearing, the judgment must be affirmed, and it is so ordered..", "type": "majority", "author": "Smith, J." } ], "attorneys": [ "H. C. Rains, for appellant.", "Guy E. Williams, Attorney General and Earl N. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Tugg v. State.\n4324\n174 S. W. 2d 374\nOpinion delivered October 11, 1943.\nH. C. Rains, for appellant.\nGuy E. Williams, Attorney General and Earl N. Williams, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0161-01", "first_page_order": 181, "last_page_order": 184 }