Hall v. People

Decision Date25 January 1882
CourtMichigan Supreme Court
PartiesHALL v. PEOPLE.

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.

MARSTON J.

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 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 matter; that it was not material.

By the Court. "I suppose the object is to show intimacy between Hall and this woman?"

Counsel for Defendant. "That is it exactly." By the Court. "An improper intimacy, if they have any proof of that kind; it is proper."

People's Counsel. "I suppose they may show the character of the woman."

By the Court. "Yes."

Defendant's Counsel. "We are not going into the character of the woman."

By the Court. "I will sustain the objection. It is entirely proper for the defence here to show this woman has been criminally intimate with Hall if they can; but if her reputation for chastity is not to be attacked, the mere fact that Hall has been to the house is immaterial to this issue. I think I will sustain the objection under the statement of counsel that he does not propose to attack her reputation or character."

Whereupon defendant's counsel took an exception to the holding and ruling of the court.

Question. "Have you seen Hall at Mrs Conklin's frequently?" Answer. "Yes, sir." Question. "Have you heard Mrs. Conklin invite him to come there?" Ans...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • State v. Ogden
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Oregon
    • 1 Julio 1901
    ...to the act in question. Barnes v. State, 88 Ala. 204, 7 So. 38, 16 Am.St.Rep. 48; State v. Cook, 65 Iowa, 560, 22 N.W. 675; Hall v. People, 47 Mich. 636, 11 N.W. 414; People v. Goulette, 82 Mich. 36, 45 N.W. 1124. these respects the law is uniform, but upon the question of proving specific ......
  • The State v. Scott
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 4 Marzo 1903
    ...... guilt that he had made attempts to commit the same offense. recently before the commission of the act for which he was on. trial. [People v. Jones, 99 N.Y. 667, 2 N.E. 49;. People v. O'Sullivan, 104 N.Y. 481, 10 N.E. 880.]. . .           [172. Mo. 543] The charge in the ... commit rape, though the proof establishing the defense of. rape was complete. [People v. Miller, 96 Mich. 119,. 55 N.W. 675; Hall v. People, 47 Mich. 636, 11 N.W. 414; State v. Shepard, 7 Conn. 54; Com. v. Cooper, 15 Mass. 187; Polson v. State, 137 Ind. 519, 35 N.E. 907.]. . ......
  • State v. Bell
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Missouri
    • 6 Marzo 1906
    ...commit a rape though the proof establishing the offense of rape was complete. People v. Miller, 96 Mich. 119, 55 N. W. 675; Hall v. People, 47 Mich. 636, 11 N. W. 414; State v. Shepard, 7 Conn. 56; Com. v. Cooper, 15 Mass. 187; Polson v. State (Ind. Sup.) 35 N. E. 907. This section 2361 has......
  • State v. Young
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • 21 Marzo 1900
    ......State v. Dolan,. 17 Wash. 499, 50 P. 472; 1 Bish. Cr. Proc. 612; 10 Am. & Eng. Enc. Law, 577; Tully v. People, 67 N.Y. 15;. Whitman v. State, 17 Neb. 224, 22 N.W. 459. Section. 1243, Code Proc., provides that 'words used in a statute. to ... of such inferior degree ought [22 Wash. 277] to be given. 2. Enc. Pl. & Prac. 855, and cases cited; Hall v. People, 47 Mich. 636, 11 N.W. 414; Moore v. State. (Tex. Cr. App.) 26 S.W. 403; People v. Watson. (Cal.) 57 P. 1071; 2 Bish. Cr. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT