State v. Maloney
Supreme Court of Missouri
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeArmond, Judge. (1) The state is bound to prove, first, that defendant took the prosecuting witness unlawfully against her will, and, second, that his intent was to compel her at the time of the taking to marry him. R. S. 1879, sec. 1256. (2) The letters of May 17, and June 6, 1888, were improperly admitted in evidence. They were irrelevant and prejudicial. Only such' evidence is admissible which tends to prove the issue.
Read the full summary
Appeal from Bates Circuit Court. — Hon. D. A. DeArmond, Judge. (1) The state is bound to prove, first, that defendant took the prosecuting witness unlawfully against her will, and, second, that his intent was to compel her at the time of the taking to marry him. R. S. 1879, sec. 1256. (2) The letters of May 17, and June 6, 1888, were improperly admitted in evidence. They were irrelevant and prejudicial. Only such' evidence is admissible which tends to prove the issue. Greenl. Ev. [ 14 Ed.] sec. 52-3. (3) Instruction, numbered 2, given for the state was erroneous. (4) The verdict is against…
1Opinion of the CourtGantt, P. J.
This is a prosecution under section 1256, Revised Statutes, 1879, or section 3483 of Revised Statutes, 1889.
The defendant was charged with having taken the prosecutrix with force and against her will with intent to compel her by force, menace and duress to marry him. The taking was laid on April 25, 1888. The plea was not guilty. There was a mistrial at the November term, 1888, and at the February term, 1889, of the Bates circuit court defendant was again tried, and was convicted, and his sentence assessed at two years in the penitentiary. From this he appeals to this court.
The prosecutrix,…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Denker v. Wolff Milling Co.Missouri Court of Appeals · 1909