State v. Arnold
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — No». Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the application for a continuance filed by the defendant on the ground of the sickness of Mrs. Baum, a most important witness.
Read the full summary
Appeal from New Madrid Circuit Court. — No». Frank Kelly, Judge. (1) The court erred in overruling the application for a continuance filed by the defendant on the ground of the sickness of Mrs. Baum, a most important witness. State v. Hesterly, 182 Mo.' 32; State v. Maddox, 117 Mo. 667; State v. Dewitt, 152 Mo. 8-5; State v. Warden, 94 Mo. 650; State v. Bradley, 90 Mo. 160. (2) The court erred in permitting the prosecuting witness to state on the stand, over the objection of the defendant, that she was pregnant and that the defendant was responsible for her condition. State v. Palmberg, 199…
1Opinion of the CourtRevelle, J.
This is a prosecution by information charging rape upon a female child under the *37age of fifteen years. Trial resulted in a verdict of guilty, and assessment of punishment at imprisonment in the penitentiary for a term of five years.
On the part of the State; Mabel Stuart, the prosecutrix, testified that about June 1, 1913, she was employed by defendant as a domestic in his home, and so continued until August 3rd of that year. During the first three weeks of her employment the defendant’s family was absent, and from the first night of her stay in his home, on until she left, he had sexual…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- State v. PalmbergSupreme Court of Missouri · 1906
- State v. EvansSupreme Court of Missouri · 1897
- State v. NeasbySupreme Court of Missouri · 1905
3Cited by3 opinions
- State Ex Rel. Shartel v. TrimbleSupreme Court of Missouri · 1933
- In re DavisNew York Surrogate's Court · 1927
- State v. AmendeSupreme Court of Missouri · 1936