Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sneed v. State

Supreme Court of Arizona

September 17, 1932

ROBERT SNEED, Appellant,
v.
STATE, Respondent

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Pima. Fred W. Fickett, Judge. Judgment reversed and cause remanded for a new trial.

Mr. John W. Mayes and Mr. V. L. Hash, for Appellant.

Mr. K. Berry Peterson, Attorney General, Mr. J. R. McDougall, Assistant Attorney General and Mr. Wm. G. Hall, County Attorney, for the State.

OPINION

Page 249

[40 Ariz. 442] ROSS, J.

The appellant appeals from a conviction of forcible rape alleged to have been committed on his daughter Rita Sneed, on or about September 2, 1928, in Pima county. No complaint was made against the appellant by the prosecutrix until early in March, 1931, about two years and six months after the alleged act. Appellant was informed against by the county attorney on March 4th, and was tried, beginning April 20, 1931, found guilty April 22d by a jury, and thereafter sentenced to serve a life term in the state prison.

It is not necessary to detail the testimony. It is most sordid and repulsive. Suffice it to say the prosecution managed to get before the jury, not only evidence of the act charged, but evidence that appellant had raped another of his daughters; also evidence showing, or tending to show, he was an abortionist and a bootlegger and that he had committed an assault with a deadly weapon upon his son-in-law -- Johnson, Rita Sneed's husband. The evidence concerning all these other crimes apparently got into the record without objection from appellant, except the evidence to the effect that he had raped another of his daughters, Dehlia Sneed. This daughter, under the name of Dehlia Sneed Gore, had testified for the prosecution, and, on cross-examination, was questioned as to her feelings towards her father, to which she answered: "I haven't had anything against him only what he has done and ruined my life and everything." On redirect examination by the assistant county attorney [40 Ariz. 443] the following questions, objections, rulings and answers appear:

"Q. You testified a few minutes ago that your father had ruined your life. Just what do you mean by that?

"Mr. Hash: Just a moment. We object to this because he is attempting again to get in by indirection what cannot be gotten in by direction.

"The court: Objection overruled.

"A. He treated me the same way when I was about thirteen years old, for several years, and ruined all my life and happiness.

"Mr. Houston: Q. What do you mean he treated you in the same way?

"Mr. Hash: Just a moment. We object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant, and a sufficient foundation hasn't been laid, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.