Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D was twenty-two years of age, had only known Lela Smith a few days. She met him as a stranger in a 'beer joint' in Livingston, and she was in company with a woman of unsavory reputation by the name of Padgett. Lela wrote D a letter, addressing him in the most endearing terms and urging him to meet her at a certain place in Livingston on the following Saturday. Lela Smith was fifteen. When they met, they went to her uncle's home where they spent the night. D contends that he first met the girl at the 'beer joint' with the Padgett woman and after drinking beer and some whiskey, he testified, 'The last thing I remember these girls got me in a car and left town with me. I did not know the girl had an uncle in Livingston and remember nothing after they left with me until I woke up the next morning in bed with her at some man's house.' He further claimed to have had no recollection of having sexual relations with the girl. This latter statement of D is most incredible, and the jury evidently gave it no credence, although it was doubtless true that he had been drinking. The proof is uncontradicted that she had had no previous acquaintance with this D, that she met him in the 'beer joint' and 'he came up and commenced talking;' that she knew her associate at the time was a prostitute. D was convicted of statutory rape. D appealed. D contends that the conduct of Lela Smith in hanging around 'beer joints' and associating with known prostitutes, as well as her manifest readiness to engage in sexual intercourse, as shown by her willingness to make her uncle's home a place of assignation, was a complete defense to the charge against him.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co