{ "id": 1507854, "name": "Walton v. State", "name_abbreviation": "Walton v. State", "decision_date": "1903-06-06", "docket_number": "", "first_page": "398", "last_page": "403", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "71 Ark. 398" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "1 Wis. 209", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "case_ids": [ 8713179 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/wis/1/0209-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ark. 143", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8725378 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/19/0143-01" ] }, { "cite": "49 la. 531", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2328029 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/49/0531-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 la. 389", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 337738 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/5/0389-01" ] }, { "cite": "5 So. 484", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "24 So. 43", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "73 Ala. 527", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "case_ids": [ 5545784 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ala/73/0527-01" ] }, { "cite": "42 S. W. 933", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "84 N. C. 803", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8698790 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/84/0803-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 379", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1327687 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/59/0379-01" ] }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 511", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1897073 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/40/0511-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 S. E. 856", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "68 Am. Dec. 708", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "1 Wis. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "27 Mich. 134", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1954598 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/27/0134-01" ] }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1327694 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/59/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Wis. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 S. W. 97", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 So. 264", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 485", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "84 Am. Dec. 177", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "Am. Dec.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1095" } ], "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "26 N Y. 203", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 2033146 ], "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/26/0195-01" ] }, { "cite": "32 Hun. 58", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Hun.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "57 N. Y. 644", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "case_ids": [ 5137865 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ny/57/0644-01" ] }, { "cite": "33 Mich. 112", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mich.", "case_ids": [ 1346562 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/mich/33/0112-01" ] }, { "cite": "107 N. C. 841", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 11275248 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/nc/107/0841-01" ] }, { "cite": "4 Minn. 325", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 745331 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/4/0325-01" ] }, { "cite": "132 Ind. 219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1400610 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/132/0219-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 S. W. 841", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "81 la. 152", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "50 la. 317", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2326124 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/iowa/50/0317-01" ] }, { "cite": "80 N. Y. 1068", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "16 S. W. 511", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "93 Va. 815", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Va.", "case_ids": [ 1870719 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/va/93/0815-01" ] }, { "cite": "109 la. 641", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Iowa", "case_ids": [ 2490387 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la/109/0641-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 N E. 790", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 484", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "67 N Y. 19", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "53 N Y. 573", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "47 Ark. 488", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1888746 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/47/0488-01" ] }, { "cite": "43 Ark. 93", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1894447 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/43/0093-01" ] }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 563", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1900474 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/38/0563-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. 64", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1872430 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/36/0064-01" ] }, { "cite": "11 Ark. 169", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727569 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/11/0169-01" ] }, { "cite": "10 Ark. 536", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8727900 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ark/10/0536-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 Ark. 523", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "44 N H. 287", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.H.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "42 N W. 933", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.W.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "3 Gratt. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gratt.", "case_ids": [ 6716150 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/va/44/0794-01" ] }, { "cite": "6 La. Ann. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "La. Ann.", "case_ids": [ 523526 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/la-ann/6/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "78 Ind. 41", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1314601 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/78/0041-01" ] }, { "cite": "120 Ind. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1375225 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/120/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Conn. 319", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Conn.", "case_ids": [ 526494 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/conn/27/0319-01" ] }, { "cite": "108 Mass. 303", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "38 Ark. 521", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": -1 }, { "cite": "13 Ind. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "case_ids": [ 1436640, 1436751 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/ind/13/0565-02", "/ind/13/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "27 Minn, 52", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Minn.", "case_ids": [ 767264 ], "opinion_index": -1, "case_paths": [ "/minn/27/0052-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Pick. 305", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pick.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "5 Gratt. 590", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Gratt.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "119 Mass. 298", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Mass.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "104 Ind. 161", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ind.", "pin_cites": [ { "page": "162" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "17 Ala. 183", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ala.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "40 Ark. 486", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "weight": 2, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "59 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1327694 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/59/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "1 Wis. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Wis.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 609, "char_count": 11707, "ocr_confidence": 0.488, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2819184651458772e-07, "percentile": 0.6177145849043709 }, "sha256": "a3bfacd192d19615036df32f4cb01f93dddeecc11b1cb26563d37fa30469f5db", "simhash": "1:c2d980b27a531d9d", "word_count": 2090 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:01:48.196038+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Bunn, C. J., did not participate." ], "parties": [ "Walton v. State." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Hughes, J.,\n(after stating the facts). It seems to us so plain that the court erred in refusing to give the second instruction for the defendant that we deem it unnecessary to discuss it.' This instruction is that, \u201cwhile Julia Robinson is presumed to have been virtuous at' the time of the alleged intercourse,' if the jury believe from the evidence or circumstances that she was hot'chaste and virtuous, and did not possess actual personal chastity, or if the jury have reasonable doubt about this,_ they should acquit.\u201d\nActual personal chastity on the part of the woman was necessary to make out the crime of the defendant, and if the jury had a reasonable doubt that she possessed this, they were bound to acquit the defendant. Actual personal chastity on her part was a material element of the crime. Polk v. State, 40 Ark. 486.\nIt seems equally, clear to this court that there was no prejudicial error committed by the court below in striking out and refusing to' give the last clause of instruction No. 1, asked for by the defendant, which is as follows: \u201cAnd she would not have yielded to defendant\u2019s embraces without such promise of marriage.\u201d\nThe court had instructed the jury by instruction No. 3 that, before they could convict the defendant, they must find that such intercourse was had by reason and on account of defendant\u2019s promising to marry the girl, who at the time she yielded to his embraces was in possession of actual personal chastity. The last clause of instruction one was covered in effect by the first clause of same, and the court properly struck it out. There was no necessity to repeat what had been given.\nWas the indictment sufficient, which is as follows (leaving out the formal parts) to-wit: .\u201cThat said James Walton, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 15th day of May, 1901, being a single and unmarried man, unlawfully and feloniously did obtain carnal knowledge of one Julia Robinson, a single and unmarried female, by virtue of a false promise of marriage to her previously made, by said James Walton, against the peace and dignity of the state of Arkansas.\u201d\nWas the judgment of the court correct in refusing to arrest the judgment after conviction on this indictment? Did it state facts constituting a public offense under the laws of Arkansas ?\nSeduction of a woman is made a crime in most states by statute. . It consists- in the act. of seducing an unmarried female \u201cof previous chaste character,\u201d and having sexual intercourse with her by virtue of a feigned or .pretended. marriage or of any false or feigned express promise of marriage.\u201d These are the essential ingredients of seduction, according to our statute. Sec. 1900, Sand. & H. Dig.\nThough the statute does not mention that the woman must be \u201cof previous chaste character,\u201d it plainly implies it; said this court in Polk v. State, in which case the opinion was delivered by Mr. Associate Justice Smith. \u201cThe legislature never intended to send a man to the penitentiary for having illicit connection with a prostitute or woman of easy virtue, where she had consented, even under a false promise of marriage. The statute of Michigan also omits the words \u201cof previous chaste character,\u201d but it has received the same construction as if they had been there. Polk v. State, 40 Ark. 486.\nIt is held that the previous chaste character of the woman before seduction is an element of the crime, and it should be alleged in an indictment for that offense, and unless it is shown the defendant can not be convicted. The elements constituting the offense must be alleged in the indictment. If the statute does not sufficiently set out the facts which constitute the offense, the indictment must do so, and if it fails to do so, it is insufficient, though the offense be alleged in the .language of the statute itself, which in ordinary cases is sufficient. 10 Enc. Plead & Prac. 487; Eubanks v. State, 17 Ala. 183; 1 Bishop, Cr. Proc. \u00a7\u00a7 77, 88; Riggs v. State, 104 Ind. 161, 162; Clark, Cr. Proc. pp. 153, 163; Wharton, Cr. Law, 1757; Com. v. Filburn, 119 Mass. 298; Com. v. Hampton, 5 Gratt. 590; Com. v. Stack, 19 Pick. 305.\nThe chastity of the woman before seduction is presumed, but the presumption of chastity may be rebutted, and the presumption of innocence of the defendant overcomes the presumption of chastity. In McArthur v. State, 59 Ark. 431, it was said by Mr. Associate Justice Riddick delivering the opinion of the court: \u201cWe think the court erred also in telling the jury that the presumption was in favor of the chastity of the prosecuting witness. The presumption of virtue in one citizen can not work the condemnation of another, in whose favor, when charged with crime, the law raises the presumption of innocence.\u201d It was held in West v. State, 1 Wis. 187, that the court did not presume, in the absence of testimony, the previous chaste character of the female; such presumption being incompatible with the presumption of innocence of the accused. The court said: \u201cThese presumptions are always to be used in the administration of justice as a weapon of defense, and not of assault.\u201d The chastity of the female is presumed, but may be impeached by proof of immorality or indecorum or her general bad'character before seduction, and in rebuttal the state may prove her previous purity by her own testimony or by her general reputation, as held in Polk v. State, supra. The court erred in overruling the motion in arrest of judgment.\nThe judgment is reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.\nBunn, C. J., did not participate.", "type": "majority", "author": "Hughes, J.," } ], "attorneys": [ "F. T. Vaughan, for appellant.", "George W. Murphy, Attorney General, for the State.," ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Walton v. State.\nOpinion delivered June 6, 1903.\n1. Seduction \u2014 Chastity of Prosecutrix. \u2014 In a prosecution for seduction it is error to refuse to instruct that if the jury had reasonable doubt as to the chastity of the prosecutrix they should acquit, (Page 400.)\n2, Same \u2014 Instruction.\u2014In a prosecution for seduction defendant asked the court to charge that the burden was on the state to show \u201cthat such carnal knowledge was had by virtue of an express promise of-marriage made to her by defendant, and that she would not have yielded to his embraces without such promise of marriage.\u201d The court modified the instruction as asked by striking out the italicized .clause. Held, no error, as the clause stricken out was covered by the preceding one. (Page 401.)\n3. Same \u2014 Indictment.\u2014An indictment for seduction is bad which fails to allege that the prosecutrix was \u201cof previous chaste character.\u201d (Page 401.)\n4, Same \u2014 Conflict of Presumptions. \u2014 The presumption in favor of the chastity of the prosecutrix in seduction is overcome by the presumption in favor of defendant\u2019s innocence. (Page 402.)\nAppeal from Pulaski Circuit Court.\nRobert J. Lea, Judge.\nSTATEMENT. BY THE COURT.\nThe indictment is as follows (after omitting formal part) : \u201cThe said James Walton, in the county and state aforesaid, on the 15th day of May, 1901, being a single and unmarried man, unlawfully and feloniously did obtain carnal knowledge of one Julia .Robinson, a single and unmarried female, by virtue of a false expressed promise of marriage to her previously made by said James Walton, against the peace,\u201d etc.\nAppellant demurred to the indictment. His demurrer being overruled, exceptions were saved. After conviction, appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, upon the overruling of which appellant saved exceptions. He was tried upon Ms plea of not gMlty* convicted and appealed to tMs court.\nAfter conviction the appellant filed a motion in arrest of judgment, which was by the court overruled, to which he excepted. Before the ease was submitted to the jury, the defendant\u2019s counsel moved the court to give to the jury the following instruction, to-wit: Instruction No. 2. \u201cWhile Julia Robinson is presumed to have been virtuous at the time of the alleged intercourse, if the jury believe, from the evidence or circumstances, that she was not chaste and virtuous, and did not possess actual personal chastity, or if the jury have reasonable doubt about this, they should acquit.\u201d\nThe only other instruction on reasonable doubt in the case was instruction No. 1, which, as given by the court, is as follows; Instruction No. 1: \u201cThe burden is on the state to show beyond reasonable doubt: (1) That the crime was committed in Pulaski county, Arkansas. (2) That it occurred within three years before the finding of the indictment. (3) That the defendant had carnal knowledge of Julia Robinson; and (4) That such carnal knowledge was had by virtue of an express promise of marriage made to her by the defendant, and that-she would not have yielded to his embraces without such promise of marriage.\u201d\nThe court refused to give this as asked, but modified it by striking out the words \u201cand she would not have yielded to his embraces without such promise of marriage,\u201d to which the defendant excepted.\nThis was not an instruction that, if the jury had a reasonable doubt on the whole case, which would have included the part of instruction No. 2, refused by the court, \u201cthat she (the woman) did not possess actual personal chastity, or if the jury have reasonable doubt about this, they should acquit.\u201d\nThere were other instructions asked and refused, and various questions raised and discussed, some of which are questions for a jury, should the appellant be tried again on this charge, and others of which it is unnecessary for us to discuss.\nF. T. Vaughan, for appellant.\n- The indictment must allege every fact which is an element\u2019 of the crime. 1 Bish. Or. Pro, (2d ed,-) \u00a7\u00a7 88, 325, If chastity of female is essential, it must be alleged. Id. 519, 529; 21 Am.- & Eng. Ene. Law(l ed.), 1046; 27 Minn, 52; 2 Wharton, Or. Law(10 ed.), 1757; 13 Ind. 565; 49' Cal. 91; 10 Ene. Pl. & Pr. 483 ; 38 Ark. 521; 108 Mass. 303; 27 Conn. 319; 120 Ind. 562; 78 Ind. 41; 6 La. Ann. 227 ; 19 Pik. 305'; 119 Mass.\" 298; 1 Rich. S. C. 179; 3 Gratt. 590; 42 N W. 933; 44 N H. 287. The indictment must be broader than the statute: 6 Ark. 523; 10 Ark. 536; 11 Ark. 169; 3\u00d3 Ark. 497; 36 Ark. 64; 38 Ark. 521; 38 Ark. 563; 43 Ark. 93; 47 Ark. 488. Under certain circumstances the indicement must set up the circumstances of the crime. 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. \u00a7\u00a7 282-362-366; Myers, Fed. Dec. vol. 12, \u00a7 1433; 53 N Y. 573; 67 N Y. 19. The corroborating evidence was insufficient. 40 Ark. 484; 3 N E. 790; 109 la. 641; 93 Va. 815; 16 S. W. 511; 42 N W..933; 80 N. Y. 1068; 50 la. 317; 81 la. 152; 10 S. W. 841; 132 Ind. 219; 4 Minn. 325; 107 N. C. 841; Rice, Cr. Ev. 868-873; 4 Am. Cr. -Rep. 562. It was error to refuse instruction No. 1 asked by appellant. 33 Mich. 112; Hughes, Cr. L. \u00a7 2162; 1 Am.'Cr. Rep. 660; 11 Midi. 278; 57 N. Y. 644; 32 Hun. 58; 26 N Y. 203; 84 Am. Dec. 177, 1095. It must appear that seduction was had by an unconditional promise of marriage. Underhill, Cr. Ev. \u00a7 387; 40 Ark. 485; 16 So. 264; 16 S. W. 97; 9 Am. Cr. Rep. 606; 15 Am. Dec. \u00a7 664. The court erred in striking out the words \u201cor if the jury have reasonable doubt about this\u201d in an instruction asked by appellant. Bish. St. Cr. \u00a7 648; 1 Wis. 187; 59 Ark. 431; 1 Bish. Cr. Pro. \u00a7\u00a7 1053-58; 2 lb. 669-673, 469, 371; Rice, Cr. Law, 870-6, 421-37; 21 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 1047; 27 Mich. 134; 1 Wis. 188; 68 Am. Dec. 708; 11 S. E. 856; 40 Ark. 511; Whar. Cr. Ev. \u00a7\u00a7 331-2, 719-720; 59 Ark. 379; 51 Ark; 550; 16 S. W. 511; 59' Ark. 431; 84 N. C. 803; 8 Am. Cr. Rep. 483; 42 S. W. 933; 73 Ala. 527; 23 Am. & Eng. Ene. Law, 1047,; 24 So. 43. Evidence of reputation of female involved for chastity is not competent. 5 So. 484; 26 N. Y. 203; 5 la. 389; 49 la. 531; 19 Ark. 143; 2 Wharton Cr. Law (10 ed.), 1757; 1 Wis. 209; 11 S. E. 856; 73 Ala. 527.\nGeorge W. Murphy, Attorney General, for the State.," }, "file_name": "0398-01", "first_page_order": 416, "last_page_order": 421 }