State v. King

Citations

• 9 S.D. 628
• 70 N.W. 1046
• 1897 S.D. LEXIS 121

Syllabus

<p>1. The words “illicit connection”, as used in the statute defining seduction under promise of marriage, are equivalent to “setual intercourse.”</p> <p>2. The presence of a witness during the taking of testimony in violation of an order of exclusion, is not ground for rejecting his testimony, unless the party calling him connived at his disobedience.</p> <p>3. Under Laws 1895, Chap. 64, Sec. 2, requiring the state’s attorney to indorse on the information the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same, and, at such time before the trial as the court may direct, also to indorse thereon other witnesses then known to him, witnesses whose names are not so indorsed are properly allowed to testify, in the absence of any showing that they were known to the state’s attorney before the trial began.</p> <p>4. In a prosecution for seduction, testimony as to defendant’s bad reputation for chastity up to the time^ he was accused was properly received, though the crime was committed several months prior thereto.</p> <p>5. In a prosecution for seduction, an unsigned typewritten letter, inclosed in an envelope, addressed to the pro'secutrix, and postmarked at a place where defendant was then staying, asking prosecutrix to go to that place, and be treated by a physician, was properly admitted; it appearing that she was then pregnant, that defendant had previously given her medicine to relieve her, that she told no one except him of her condition, and that when she complied with the request in said letter, she was taken in charge by an intimate friend of defendant.</p> <p>6. Under Comp Laws, Sec. 7386, requiring the testimony of the prosecutrix in cases of seduction under promise of marriage to be corroborated by other evidence “tending to connect defendant with the commission of the offense,” the testimony of the prosecutrix that such an offense was committed need not be corroborated.</p>