Morgan v. State
Supreme Court of Alabama
Error to the Circuit Court of Barbour. The prisoner was indicted for the crime of incest, and convicted at the spring term, 1846. The indictment charges, that the prisoner, on the 1st September, 1845, in the county of, &c.
Read the full summary
Error to the Circuit Court of Barbour. The prisoner was indicted for the crime of incest, and convicted at the spring term, 1846. The indictment charges, that the prisoner, on the 1st September, 1845, in the county of, &c. “ being then and there the father of one Sarah Morgan, and within the degree of consanguinity within which marriages are by law declared to be incestuous, and void, and then and there knowing the said Sarah Morgan to be his daughter, did then and there live with said Sarah Morgan, in a state of adultery,” &c. &c. At the trial, no proof was made of a marriage between the…
1Opinion of the CourtGoldthwaite, J.
1. It is argued that this indictment is defective, because it omits to charge the female with knowledge of the relation between herself and the other guilty party. It is true, the statute defines the offence to be the living in a state of adultery of persons within the degrees of consanguinity, or relationship, whose marriages are declared by law to be incestuous and void, knowing of such consanguinity, but this, in our judgment, warrants no inference that the knowledge is to be common to both the parties, before the guilt of either can attach. If there can be an aggra*291vation in a crime like…
2Cited by8 opinions
- Buchanan v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1876
- State v. JuddSupreme Court of Iowa · 1906
- Cameron v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1848
- Wadkins v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1910
- Brewer v. StateSupreme Court of Alabama · 1877
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.