11 N.W. 414 (Mich. 1882), Hall v. People

Citation:11 N.W. 414, 47 Mich. 636
Opinion Judge:MARSTON, J.
Party Name:HALL v. PEOPLE.
Attorney:H.F. Pennington, for plaintiff in error. J.J. Van Riper, for the people.
Case Date:January 25, 1882
Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Page 414

11 N.W. 414 (Mich. 1882)

47 Mich. 636




Supreme Court of Michigan

January 25, 1882

Where defendant was indicted for rape, held, that it was competent to show on his behalf that the previous relations between him and the prosecuting witness had been of a friendly character, although such evidence would have no tendency to show that improper relations existed between them, or that her general character or reputation was bad.

Error to Eaton.

H.F. Pennington, for plaintiff in error.

J.J. Van Riper, for the people.


The respondent was charged with the crime of rape upon one Ella Conklin and convicted. Several errors are assigned, only two of which will be noticed. It appears by the evidence that the complaining witness and her husband had some time prior to the alleged offence resided in a house belonging to the respondent. And she testified that respondent was not on friendly terms with her; that at the time of the alleged rape when he came into the house she did not enter into any conversation with him, except to answer his questions; that she told him she wanted him to go home; that she did not want him to come in there when her husband was away; that she did not upon one occasion see defendant at Hamilton's store in the evening[47 Mich. 637] and invite him to come over to her house before he went home. She further testified that she did not like the defendant, and that he did not come to the house on any other occasion except to get his rent.

Mrs. Chappell, a witness sworn on the part of the defence, testified that she was acquainted with the complaining witness and respondent. The following questions, answers and rulings then followed:

Mrs. Hattie Chappell, a witness sworn on behalf of the defendant, testified that she was acquainted with Mrs. Ella Conklin, and with the defendant. Had been at Mrs. Conklin's house frequently. Question. "When you have been there with Mrs. Conklin have you heard her talk with Reuben Hall, (the defendant,) or say anything about his being there?" Answer. "Yes, sir." Question. "State to the jury what you have heard her say?" To which question the prosecutor interposed an objection.

By the Court to Defendant's Counsel. "You must lay the foundation for impeachment if you wish to show her statement."

Counsel for the people thereupon claimed that it was a collateral...

To continue reading