Supreme Court of South Carolina, 1911

State v. Dawson

Supreme Court of South Carolina · Decided March 27, 1911 · Woods

70 S.E. 721; 88 S.C. 225; 1911 S.C. LEXIS 112 (South Eastern Reporter)

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

State v. Barrett (S.C. 1989)
United States v. DeJonge (United States Court of Military Appeals 1983)
State v. Floyd (S.C. 1934)
State v. Barrett (S.C. 1989)
In the Interest of Smith (S.C. 1981)
State v. Cox (S.C. 1980)
State v. Sharpe (S.C. 1961)
State v. Harrison (S.C. 1960)
State v. Bragg (Me. 1944)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Woods.

The jury found a verdict of guilty with recommendation to mercy against the defendant on an indictment charging the commission of a rape on his own daughter, a child just over the age of fourteen. No argument has been submitted1 in support of the exceptions for the reason1, we suppose, that none could be adduced.

1 The testimony of the child was that she submitted to her father under the compulsion of parental command. It was not necessary, as said in the first exception, to show that the child made physical resistance. The issue as to whether there was such parental compulsion as to constitute force was properly submitted to the jury.

2 Counsel for defendant having expressly waived his objection to the mother of the child testifying against her husband, there is no foundation for the second exception.

3 The Circuit Judge excluded all evidence of the details of the complaint of the child testified to by her mother as made immediately after the alleged rape. Her complaints that she 'had been ravished and was suffering from the rape were competent. The position of defendant’s counsel that testimony on this subject must be restricted to the mere fact that the alleged victim made a complaint, and that testimony that she complained of being ravished was inadmissible, is entirely untenable. The details of the complaint are not admissible, but unless the witness be allowed to state what the alleged victim complained of, the evidence would be of no consequence. State v. Suddeth, 52 S. C. 488.

It is the judgment of this Court that the judgment of 'the Circuit Court be affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.