State v. Duckett

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT. In order to convict a man of “assault with intent to rape,” the state must establish by the evidence, to the satisfaction of the jury and beyond a reasonable doubt, that the accused intended to have intercourse with the female by force and against her will, and that he not only used force, where, an assault is charged, but used- such force with the intention at the time to have sexual intercourse with her in defiance of, and notwithstanding, any resistance she might make.

Appeal from District Court, Chaves County; McClure, Judge. • Bobert L. Duckett was convicted of assault with intent to rape, and he appeals. The evidence is insufficient to establish that the assault was made with intent to rape, and that was essential to sustain the charge. 33 Cyc. 1433; State v. Scholl, 33 S. W. 968; State v. Owlsley, 15 S. W. 137; State v. Priestly, 74 S. W. (Mo.) 24; Carroll v. State, 6 S. W. 190; Powerfe v. State, 18 S. W. 552; Fields v. State, 24 S. W. 907; Steinkie v. State. 25 S. W. 287; Mathews v. State, 31 S. W. 381; Passmore v. State, 15 S. W. 286; Ellenberg v. State, 35 S. W. 989; Quinn v. State, 84 S. W. .505; State v. Hohn, 87 S. W. 1006; Marthall v. State, 36 S. W. 1062; Laco v. State, 38 S. W. 176; Clark v. State, 45 S. W. 696; Graybill v. State, 72 S. W. 395; Coffee v. State, 76 S. W. 761; Caddell v. State, 70 S. W. 91; Warren v. State, 103 S. W. 888; Williams v. State, 113 S. W. 799; Moore v. State, 48 N. W. 653; State v. Kendall, 34 N. W. 843; State v. Biggs, 61 N. W. 417; Hair-ston v. State, 32 S. E. 797; Dorsey v. State, 34 S; E. 135; Hollister v. State, 59 N. E. 847; Newman v. State, 79 N. E. 80; Franey v. State, 71 N. E. 443; Stevens v. People, 41 N. E. 858; Green v. State, 7 Southern, 326; Jones v. State, 8 Southern, 383; State v. MeCune, 51 Pac. 818; Herrick v. Territory, 99 Pac. 1096; State v. Priestly, 74 Mo. 24; State v. Neely, 21 Am. Eep. 496; Johnson v. State, 63 Ga. 355; Charles v. State, 11 Am. St. Eep. 386; State v. Kendall, 5 Am. St. Eep. 679; Com. v. Merrell, 77 A. D. 336; Blannett v. State, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. E. 313; Thompson v. State, 43 Tex. 583; Irving v. State, 9 Tex. App. 66; Topolpeek v. State, 40 Tex. 160; House v. State, 9 Tex. App. 567; Hamilton v. State, 11 Tex. App. 119; Bobertson. v. State, 17 S. W. 1668; Shields v. State, 23 S. W. 893; Porter v. State, 26 S. W. 626; Price v. State, 35 S. W. 988; O’Brien v. State, 46 S. W. 969; Peterson v. State, 14 Tex. App. 162; Jones v. State, 18 Tex, App. 485; Dickey v. State, 2 S. W. 809; Thompson v. State, 41 Tex. 583; Saddler v. State, 12 Tex. App. 194; Sanford v. State, 12 Tex. App. 196; State v. Donovan, 16 N. W. 206. The evidence is sufficient to establish the intent to rape. Texas and New Mexico cases cited by appellant distinguished. 33 Cyc. 1434; State v. Bagan, 43 N. W. 5; State v. Shroyer, 24 Am. St. B. 344; State v. Boon, 57 Am. Dec. 555; State v. Hartigan, 78 Am. D. 609; 2 Bish. Cr. L. 939; State v. Cross, 79 Am. D. 519; Jackson v. State, 44,Am. S. B. 25; People v. Carlson, 136 Am. St. E. 447; State v. Dalton, 17 S. W. 700; State v. Ather-ton, 32 Am. D. 134; People v. Marrs, 84 N. W. 284; Golver v. Comm., 86 Ya. 382; State v. Neal, 90 Pac. 860; People v. Stewart, 32 Pac. 8; Terr. v. Edie, 6 N. M. 556; State v. Tamler, 9 L. B. A. 583; State v. Padilla, 18 N. M. 573.