State v. Perkins

South Dakota Supreme Court

State v. Perkins

141 N.W. 364, 31 S.D. 447, 1913 S.D. LEXIS 138

CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

DecidedMay 6, 1913

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 141 N.W. 364 (State v. Perkins) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering South Dakota Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Perkins, 141 N.W. 364, 31 S.D. 447, 1913 S.D. LEXIS 138 (S.D. 1913).

Pincite

Opinion

GATES, J.

The defendant, a married man, was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape upon a girl aged' seven years.

Assuming the evidence on behalf of the state to be true, it only showed that defendant placed his hand upon the private parts of the child and tickled her. There is an entire absence of facts indicating an intent on the part of the defendant to commit the offense charged. The intent is the gist of the offense. People v. Dowell, 136 Mich. 306, 99 N. W. 23; State v. Riseling, 186 Mo. 521, 85 S. W. 372; In re Lloyd, 51 Kan. 501, 33 Pac. 307; Hudson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. App. 24, 90 S. W. 177; State v. Kendall, 73 Iowa, 255, 34 N. W. 843, 5 Am. St. Rep. 679; 33 Cyc. 1432, 1435. While the acts of the defendant testified to by the child were contemptible, and the defendant should be shunned by decent people, they do not indicate any intention on his part of doing more than the taking of an unwarrantable liberty with the person of the .child. We cannot understand how a fair and impartial jury could have found from the evidence an intent on his part to commit rape.

In view of the manifest lack of ability with which the defense was conducted, we deem it only fair to counsel whose name is appended to this opinion to state that he did not represent defendant at the trial.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed, and a new trial is granted.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GATES, J.

The defendant, a married man, was convicted of assault with intent to commit rape upon a girl aged' seven years.

Assuming the evidence on behalf of the state to be true, it only showed that defendant placed his hand upon the private parts of the child and tickled her. There is an entire absence of facts indicating an intent on the part of the defendant to commit the offense charged. The intent is the gist of the offense. People v. Dowell, 136 Mich. 306, 99 N. W. 23; State v. Riseling, 186 Mo. 521, 85 S. W. 372; In re Lloyd, 51 Kan. 501, 33 Pac. 307; Hudson v. State, 49 Tex. Cr. App. 24, 90 S. W. 177; State v. Kendall, 73 Iowa, 255, 34 N. W. 843, 5 Am. St. Rep. 679; 33 Cyc. 1432, 1435. While the acts of the defendant testified to by the child were contemptible, and the defendant should be shunned by decent people, they do not indicate any intention on his part of doing more than the taking of an unwarrantable liberty with the person of the .child. We cannot understand how a fair and impartial jury could have found from the evidence an intent on his part to commit rape.

In view of the manifest lack of ability with which the defense was conducted, we deem it only fair to counsel whose name is appended to this opinion to state that he did not represent defendant at the trial.

The judgment and order denying a new trial are reversed, and a new trial is granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 N.W. 364, 31 S.D. 447, 1913 S.D. LEXIS 138, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-perkins-sd-1913.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack