Case Name: State v. McCoy
Court: Supreme Court of Ohio
Jurisdiction: Ohio
Decision Date: 1894-12-11
Citations: 52 Ohio St. 157
Docket Number: 
Parties: State v. McCoy.
Judges: 
Reporter: Ohio State Reports, New Service
Volume: 52
Pages: 157–160

Head Matter:
State v. McCoy.
Producing criminal miscarriage — Principal offender — Section 6815, Revised Statutes — Woman as aider or abettor — Section 6804, Revised Statutes.
By section 6815, Revised Statutes, one who prescribes or administers medicines to a pregnant -woman with intent to produce a criminal miscarriage upon her, is made a principal offender; while by section 6804, Revised 'Statutes, the woman is subject to indictment as an aider and abettor thereof, if she voluntarily and knowingly participates in the unlawful act; and in such case, if upon the trial of a principal offender, she testify on behalf of the state her evidence should be regarded as that of an accomplice.
(Decided December 11, 1894.)
Exceptions to the Court of Common Pleas of Wayne county.
The defendant was indicted and placed on trial upon a charge of unlawfully administering medicine to a pregnant woman, with intent to procure a miscarriage. The woman was a witness for the state, and the defendant contended that if she knowingly and voluntarily took the medicine with intent to cause her own miscarriage, then her testimony should be received as that of an accomplice, and the jury cautioned by the court to regard it accordingly. The trial court took this view of the question and charged the jury as follows :
“If you find from the evidence that Julia Harri son was pregnant at the time alleged in the indictment, and knew she was then so pregnant, and with the intent of causing and procuring a miscarriage, she went to the accused and was examined by him, and that afterwards the accused himself, or Yoder acting under the instructions of the accused, procured from him the ergot or other medicines which were given to said Julia Harrison, the accused and Yoder then and there intending that said Julia Harrison should take said ergot and other medicines for the purpose of causing her to have a miscarriage of the child of which she was then pregnant, and that the said Julia Harrison then and there knowing that said ergot and other medicines were so given to her for the purpose of causing her to miscarry, took the same and miscarried ou'the 4th day of June, 1890, and and that said miscarriage, or the means to procure it, were not necessary to preserve the life of said Julia Harrison, and had not been advised by two physicians to be necessary for that purpose, then said Julia Harrison would be an accomplice in the commission of said crime, and the same rule regarding her evidence should be applied by you as I have stated to be proper in the case of the accomplice Yoder. ” * * *
To this part of the charge the prosecuting attorney excepted, and has brought it to this court for review.
A. D. Metz, prosecuting’ attorney for plaintiff.
John McSweeney, for defendant.

Opinion:
By the Court.
•That the trial court may, and usually should, caution the jury respecting' the degree of credit they should give to the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice in a fekmy is not denied; but the prosecuting attorney contends that a woman, under our statute, is not subject to indictment, although she may jointly, with others, engage in procuring upon herself a criminal miscarriage, and, therefore, is not to be regarded as an accomplice in the commission of the offense.
The statute, section 6815, Revised Statutes, under which McCoy was indicted, reads as follows: "Whoever, with intent to procure the miscarriage of any woman, prescribes or administers to her any medicine, drug, or substance whatever, or with like intent uses any instrument, or means whatever, unless such miscarriage is necessary to preserve her life, or is advised by two physicians to be necessary for that purpose, shall, if the woman either miscarries or dies in consequence thereof, be imprisoned. ' '
This statute is not, in terms, directed against the woman upon whom the offense is committed, nor against any other person who may have aided, abetted or procured its commission; its terms include the person, only, who prescribes or administers the medicine, etc., or who uses the instrument. If this was the only statute, neither the woman nor any other person could be indicted, though she or he may have counseled or procured the offense to be committed. The legislature in this instance, however, followed the usual mode adopted in this state for defining an offense, and affixing to it an appropriate penalty. Very few of our statutes that create a specific offense denounce a penalty against persons who may' merely aid, abet, counsel or procure its commission. This class of offenders is embraced by the sweeping provisions of section 6804, Revised Statutes, which, reads : " Whoever aids, abets, or procures another to commit any offense, may be prosecuted and punished as if he was the principal offender."
Whenever a. woman voluntarily participates with another person who administers medicine to, or uses an instrument upon her, for the purpose of producing a criminal miscarriage upon herself, she falls within the express provision of the last quoted statute, and is thereby subject to indictment and punishment as an aider, abettor, or procurer of the principal offender, and her evidence, when she testifies in the case, should be regarded as that of an accomplice.
Exceptions overruled.