12 N.E. 826 (Ohio 1887), Dunn v. State

Citation:12 N.E. 826, 45 Ohio St. 249
Opinion Judge:DICKMAN, J.
Party Name:DUNN v. STATE.
Attorney:Harris & Cameron and Henry G. Baker , for plaintiff in error. John W. Winn , Pros. Atty., for defendant in error.
Case Date:June 28, 1887
Court:Supreme Court of Ohio
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 826

12 N.E. 826 (Ohio 1887)

45 Ohio St. 249

DUNN

v.

STATE.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 28, 1887

Error to the circuit court, Defiance county. Indictment for rape.

D. was indicted for carnally knowing and abusing C., a female child under 10 years of age, with her consent, on the twentieth day of December, 1886. On the evening of that day, and on the next succeeding day, C. made complaint to her mother of the alleged injury. After a delay until December 30, C., in response to inquiries by her mother, made a statement to her in detail of the offense. The statement was admitted in evidence on the trial of the accused, but the delay in making it to the mother was not explained and excused by proof of sufficient cause therefor. Held error.

Syllabus by the Court

On the trial of one indicted under section 6816, Rev. St., for carnally knowing and abusing a female child under 10 years of age, with her consent, the declarations made by the injured person, in reference to the offense, several days after its perpetration, are not admissible in evidence to the jury, unless the delay in making such declarations is first explained and excused by proof of sufficient cause therefor.

Such declarations are not admissible as evidence in chief to prove the commission of the offense, but only to corroborate the testimony of the injured person given in court.

D., over 17 years of age, was indicted for carnally knowing and abusing C., a female child under 10 years of age, with her consent, on the twentieth day of December, 1886. On the evening of that day, and on the next succeeding day, C. made complaint to her mother of the alleged injury. After a delay until the thirtieth day of December, 1886, C., in response to inquiries by her mother, made a statement to her in detail of the particulars of the offense. The statement was admitted in evidence on the trial of the accused, but the delay in making it to the mother was not explained and excused by proof of sufficient cause therefor. Held , that it was error to permit such statement to be given in evidence to the jury.

Page 827

Harris & Cameron and Henry G. Baker , for plaintiff in error.

John W. Winn , Pros. Atty., for defendant in error.

DICKMAN, J.

William Dunn, the plaintiff in error, over 17 years of age, was, at the January term, 1887, of the court of common pleas of Defiance county, indicted for carnally [45 Ohio St. 250] knowing and abusing, with her consent, Mabel Castor, a female child under 10 years of age, a crime made rape by section 6816 Rev. St. The indictment charged the crime as committed on the twentieth day of December, 1886. On the trial in the court of common pleas, Mabel Castor, the prosecutrix, testified to the alleged crime, giving the time, place, and manner of its perpetration, and the name of the accused as the offender, and was permitted to testify-the counsel for the accused objecting and excepting-to declarations made by her to her mother immediately after the alleged offense, and in reference therto. The mother, Nancy Castor, was called as a witness in behalf of the state, and she was permitted to testify, over the objection and exception of the prisoner's counsel, not only to declarations made by her daughter on the night of December 20, 1886, and the day following, in relation to improper conduct to wards her on the part of the accused, but was also allowed to give in evidence to the jury declarations made to her by her daughter, Mabel Castor, 10 days after the alleged occurrence of the crime, to-wit, on the thirtieth day of December, 1886, in which she stated to her mother in detail, when interrogated, the particular circumstances of the crime laid in the indictment, and of which she declared William Dunn to be guilty. The accused was convicted; his plea being not guilty. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled, and he was sentenced to imprisonment for life. A bill of exceptions was taken, setting out all the evidence and the charge of the court. A petition in error was filed in the circuit court, and by a majority of that court the judgment of the court of common pleas was affirmed.

In a case of rape, when the person upon...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP