Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

4 Ohio C.C. 522

Lowther v. State

Ohio Circuit Courts

Decided March 15, 1890

Ohio Circuit Courts · decided 1890-03-15

At the May term, 1889, of the Court of Common Pleas of Van Wert County, Plenry Lowther was indicted of the crime of incest, and upon such indictment was afterward convicted and sentenced to the penitentiary. The court overruled a demurrer to the indictment, as also a motion in arrest of judgment and for new trial. Exceptions were taken. The petition in error raises the questions as to the sufficiency of the indictment and errors of law occurring on the trial.

Relies on State v. Buffington

Decided 1890-03-15

Moore, J.

¶1The indictment is sufficient it charges that Henry Lowther is a married man. That he committed adultery with Imo Lowther. That Imo Lowther is the daughter of the accused. That Plenry Lowther and Imo Lowther each knew the relationship of father and daughter. These constitute all the elements of the crime of incest. To charge that Henry *524Lowther did commit adultery with Imo Lowther, by then and there having sexual, intercourse with her, is equivalent to charging that they did commit adultery and fornification together.

Alexander, and Darnell, for plaintiff in error.J. Y. Todd, prosecuting attorney, for the state.

¶2It is not essential in charging the crime of incest that the parties be jointly indicted, or that they be both indicted.

¶3Before the revision, S. & C. 405, the offence was not joint, the father alone being criminal under it. The revision does nothing more-than to make criminal the daughter as well. It does not, however, make the father’s conviction dependent upon the indictment of both.

¶4Certain letters written by the accused while in jail and addressed to his wife were offered in evidence by the state and admitted over the objection and exception of the defendant.

¶5These letters were found in the possession of a third person, who produced them in court. There is nothing to show but what he properly received them and no evidence that the wife ever had them. The only portion of the letters that could at all prejudice the defendant was addressed to his daughter Imo. We think these letters were properly admitted. (20 Kan. 599.)

¶6The evidence fully supports the verdict of guilty.

¶7Judgment affirmed.

/4/ohiocc/522 · .json · Public domain